KESSLER INTERNATIONAL

A UDIT O F C LARK C O U N T Y D EVELOPMENT S E RVICES B UILDING D IVISION A N D C LARK C O U N T Y FIRE D E PA RT M E N T C OMPLAINT P R O C E S S

PREPARED FOR: CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA INTERNAL AUDIT DEPARTMENT MARCH 11, 2008

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction... Scope. Building Division Complaint Process.. Dereliction of Duties by Inspectors.. Proactive Code Enforcement (PACE).. Building Division Complaint Sample... Selective Recording of Complaints Building Division. Investigative Fees. Other Fees. Retention of Records Demeanor.. Ability to Alter Computer Data GPS Technology... Clark County Fire Department Complaint Process.. After Hours Complaints Clark County Fire Department Sample Selective Recording of Complaints CCFD Undue Influence Union Management Interview.. Comps to Building Division and CCFD... 3 4 5 11 18 18 19 23 26 27 27 29 31 32 36 37 37 38 39 40

Appendix 42 Complaint 06-00010656... Complaint 06-00000485.. Complaint 06-00008223... Complaint 05-11404 and 04-10981...... Complaint 06-00009389... Complaint 06-00000488 and 06-00001115.. Complaint 06-00011334 and 08-00000241..... Complaint 06-00009445... Complaint 06-00007995... Complaint 06-00008360... Complaint 06-00008361... Complaint 06-00008397... 43 46 47 49 51 52 54 56 57 58 59 60

Complaints 06-00009308 & 06-00009309 & 06-00009310 & 06-00009311.. Complaint 06-00012031... Complaint 06-00008368... Complaint 06-00012027... Complaint 06-00009037... Complaint 06-00008359... Complaint 06-00008719... Complaint 06-00004859... Complaint 06-00004264... Complaint 07-302. Complaint 07-218. Complaint 07-318. Complaint 07-326. Complaint 07-272. Complaint 07-486. Complaint 07-375. Complaint 07-312. Complaint 07-452. Complaint 07-503. Complaint 07-491. Complaints 07-444, 07-445 and 07-446... Complaint 07-162. Complaint 07-560. Complaint 07-277. Index.

61 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87

Introduction

It stands to reason that the public is entitled to feel a reasonable amount of trust and security in relation to the safety standards put into place by local government in regards to building and fire safety codes and the treatment of violations. Building and fire safety inspectors and other officials are entrusted with the public safety and should perform their jobs ethically and conscientiously.

Kessler International (Kessler) was recently commissioned to perform an audit of the circumstances surrounding the way a complaint lodged by a whistleblower employed at a Harrahs property on August 23, 2006 was handled by the Clark County Development Services Building Division (Building Division) and the Clark County Fire Department (CCFD). Kesslers audit has revealed that in this instance, the public trust was clearly violated.

The processes in place relative to building and fire safety code violations are meant to ensure the public safety and safeguard the lives of residents and an estimated 39.2 million visitors and tourists who travel annually to Las Vegas. Kessler has determined that these processes have significant weaknesses, and the lack of internal controls and accountability that they require allows inspectors and others in positions of public trust to circumvent the controls currently in place. Inadequate record keeping, falsified reports, favoritism and a general lack of concern and sense of urgency regarding complaints by the inspectors has caused Kessler to conclude that significant change to the current practices needs to be implemented.

During the audit, Kessler observed that the County Manager and her management staff were committed to exposing weaknesses in the system currently in place and to taking corrective action to prevent future occurrences. This commitment was demonstrated on countless occasions. Kessler also noted that many of the employees who work at the Building Division and the CCFD are dedicated public servants performing critical work and doing it well. But unfortunately, Kessler uncovered a number of instances where unethical practices, falsification of records, and a general failure to perform the functions essential to their positions, whether due to lack of training or refusal to be personally vested in their work, was demonstrated by Clark County employees. These employees cast a stigma on the commitment of their counterparts.

Scope

Kesslers audit pertained only to the handling of complaints by the Building Division and the CCFD. It should be noted that the Department of Administrative Services Public Response Office (CCPRO) is the agency that accepts residential building complaints. This offices practices were not reviewed as a portion of this audit.

The special audit procedures encompassed:

Interviews of the whistleblower in the recent matter involving Harrahs Entertainment, interviews of Clark County Building Division Development Services Department Personnel, interviews of other Clark County Personnel, interviews of Clark County Fire Department Personnel and other interviews of individuals with knowledge of the complaint process. Kessler also attempted to speak with Harrahs employees, but Harrahs Entertainments Chief Litigation Officer refused to allow Kessler to speak with any individual associated with Harrahs, claiming that the

county caused him problems with the contractors board and thus he did not want to have to defend any other claims.

Kessler reviewed thousands of documents including the Building Division complaint forms, logs, case histories and reports for the years 2006 and 2007 and sampled certain complaints. Kessler also reviewed thousands of documents relative to the CCFD complaint process, including complaint forms, logs and reports for the years 2006 and 2007 and sampled certain complaints. Other documents reviewed surrounding the complaint process for both the Building Division and CCFD included internal and external emails, departmental correspondences, procedure and policy manuals, rules and regulations, permit and complaint database information, media articles and other research materials.

Kessler also reviewed GPS records applicable to Building Division inspectors vehicle usage.

Building Division Complaint Process

On October 1, 2001 a memorandum of understanding became effective between Clark County Department of Administrative Services and Building Division regarding working assignments for residential construction. The agreement stipulates that Clark County Department of Administrative Services Public Response Office (CCPRO) became responsible for the following areas:

Handling all zoning related enforcement issues for existing commercial or residential properties. Complete the action of Notice and Orders forwarded for their processing from the Building Department.

Initiate the enforcement involved with work without permits for stand-alone single family and duplex residences. Undertake and administer all enforcement actions for accessory structures located at stand-alone single family and duplex residences.

Accompany Building Department personnel when the Building Department is requested to provide technical assistance on standalone single family or duplex residences.

In existing neighborhoods, i.e., those in which base construction occurred prior to 1980, CCPRO will conduct all inspections for residential complaints and attempt to resolve with available staff or through communications with the Building Department. Site involvement by the Building Department will be kept to a minimum.

Requests for abatement and other referrals will be sent to the Building Department Inspections Services Building Permit Specialist. Contact for technical issues will be through the Managers of Inspections Services.

The Clark County Building Department will be responsible for the following:

Handle all building code related enforcement issues for multi-family and commercial properties. Assist CCPRO on a technical consultant basis. Upon the expiration of a Notice and Order, submit a written request for CCPRO to proceed with abatement action under Chapter 11.06 of the Clark County Code; provide CCPRO with all files and documentation required to complete enforcement actions.

The Building Department will make every endeavor to prioritize CCPRO referrals and expedite responses within 15 working days. 6

Complaints may be received from various sources including walkin, telephone, facsimile, email and mail. Kesslers audit was strictly limited to the Building Division and CCFD complaint process and did not include any aspect of CCPRO.

The Building Division website (http://www.co.clark.nv.us/development_services/index.htm) does not provide the public with information regarding the ways available to them for filing complaints, nor does it address the complaint process in any way. Additionally, no specific telephone line is provided for filing complaints, and calls to the general number after hours and on holidays are met with a recorded message which does not allow the caller to be directed to a voicemail to leave complaints.

Kessler reviewed the Procedure for Accepting and Processing Complaints as provided by the Building Division (Exhibit 1). Following this review, a conversation was held with the Building Permits Specialist that handles complaints who indicated that when a complaint is initially received the complaint is written on a scrap of paper and the forms developed specifically for recording complaints are not used. Kessler has learned that the information recorded on the scrap of paper is then transferred into a computer generated form. These scraps of paper involving the original contact with the complainant are discarded when the form is typed. This individual indicated that she had literally no training in the procedures for speaking with complainants on the telephone and the proper documentation of information provided by the complainant.

During the course of the audit it became apparent that the procedures outlined in Exhibit 1 above are interpreted differently by different Building Division personnel.

The audit also disclosed that the Case Action report which is the inspectors notes regarding a complaint is often missing from the files stored in records. Some inspectors we spoke with indicated that these sheets were forwarded along with the case to the Building Permits Specialist for filing in records, while others indicated that they threw them away.

Recommendations

The Procedure for Accepting and Processing Complaints of the Building Division does not at all address the manner in which complaints are accepted, only who they may be received from. The lack of a procedure allows for the recording of complaints on scraps of paper, and not the Request for Code Enforcement Services forms specifically developed for this purpose, with the information ultimately being transferred to an electronic database (HTE) sometimes weeks, if not months later. The documentation regarding complaints from the Building Division that Kessler reviewed seldom included these Request for Code Enforcement Services forms.

Kessler recommends that when initially received, complaints only be entered onto the approved form and that any notes regarding the complaints, handwritten or otherwise, be maintained in the file. The approved form should then be used to immediately enter the information into the HTE database. The Building Division should maintain any loose handwritten notes as well as make the Request for Code Enforcement services form mandatory, and retain both in the files in accordance with the Nevada Revised Statutes Chapter 239-Public Records as the original complaint is not always what is recorded.

Since the inspectors notes are public records and may be used as evidence in the event of criminal prosecution, Kessler recommends that all notes be clear, concise, comprehensive and free of abbreviations and that notes shall be entered for every action or activity associated with a case, including but not limited to:

Inspections Phone Calls Research Office Visits Hearings Letters and Faxes sent or received

The Request for Code Enforcement Services form should incorporate a section for the person taking the information from the complainant (typically the Building Permits Specialist) to record their name as well as a section for recording the time the complaint was received, as Kessler has been informed that cases are weeks behind in being translated from the scraps of paper or Request for Code Enforcement Services forms into the HTE database.

The Request for Code Enforcement Services forms should also incorporate a referrals section to record which agency it was referred to if not being handled by the Building Division. These referrals should be maintained in the Building Division files.

A recurring weakness noted during Kesslers audit is that documents from all phases of complaint resolution are routinely discarded. It should be mandatory that any documents generated by all involved parties during all phases of the complaint investigation be preserved in

records because these documents could become the basis for testimony at administrative hearings or at trial.

Kessler recommends that accommodations be made on the Building Division website to allow the public to submit complaints electronically and anonymously. At a minimum, information regarding the different methods available for filing a complaint should be provided on the main page of the Building Division website.

Additionally, a voicemail box should be established so that callers can leave pertinent information concerning suspected violations after hours. Kessler called the general number after hours and was unable to leave a message.

Many of the complaints Kessler reviewed demonstrated an extraordinary amount of time between when the complaints were received to when they were resolved in light of the urgency of the matters involved. Kessler recommends that a mandate be established which prioritizes the complaints by potential hazardousness:

1. High Priority, requiring an inspection immediately 2. Medium Priority, requiring an inspection within three days 3. Low Priority, requiring an inspection within twenty days Kessler recommends that the Building Division provide the Building Permits Specialist with the appropriate training in regards to the procedures for speaking with complainants on the telephone and the proper documentation of information provided by the complainant. This training should be extended to any employees involved in the complaint process and encompass not only procedures, but ethics in performing duties as public employees regarding the handling of complaints. All staff

10

should also receive training in investigative report writing and proper documentation procedures for complaint files.

Kessler also recommends that all complaints filed within the last few years be reviewed by Building Division management. Where the complaint is of a serious nature and it is not documented sufficiently to determine if a true inspection was conducted we recommend that the complaint be re-investigated.

Dereliction of Duties by Inspectors

A number of complaints were lodged with the Building Division and CCFD concerning illegal construction at Harrahs properties by a whistleblower who worked for Harrahs. A Complaint was filed with the Building Division in June of 2006 for unpermitted work of Harrahs Las Vegas South tower and another complaint was filed in August of 2006 concerning 13 floors being remodeled at Harrahs Rio. Additionally, the whistleblower filed a complaint with the CCFD in March of 2007 concerning Harrahs Las Vegas. According to the records Kessler reviewed, the initial complaint at Harrahs Las Vegas was founded by the building inspector and a Notice Of Violation was given to correct the conditions within 30 days of the notice dated June 23, 2006. On July 13, 2006 the case is closed because a permit was issued.

It is not clear why the second complaint concerning the Rio from the same whistleblower was not taken seriously by Supervising Inspector 2. Furthermore, Kessler does not understand how Special Assignment Section Commercial Combination Inspector could convey to the fire department that nothing was found in April 2007, when in fact a Notice of Violation was issued to Harrahs Las Vegas. Details of the individual complaints involved are outlined below.

11

Harrahs South Mardi Gras Tower - Building Division Complaint 06-00006922

This complaint, which was filed on June 21, 2006 at 2:51PM according to the Complaint Response form, alleges that 13 floors of Harrahs Mardi Gras tower had major remodeling work conducted without permits. On June 23, 2006 an inspection was done by Building Inspector 3 who issued a Notice of Violation to Harrahs for work done without permits in the guestroom suites, giving them 30 days to correct said violations. On July 13, 2006 an email from Supervising Inspector 1 was sent to the complaint desk indicating that the case should be closed because a permit had been obtained for work on this job. The permit number given was 06-31805. Records indicate that the permit was issued on July 25, 2006 and received a Certificate of Occupancy received on October 9, 2007.

Incidentally, the construction companys name on the permit is Contractor 1. Kesslers research has disclosed that in 1999 a former terminated Clark County Building Inspector Supervisor was indicted on 13 counts of falsifying inspection records, eleven of which involved projects on the strip. Information released by the Clark County District Attorneys office implies that Contractor 1 received favoritism from this inspector on work that he was performing at the Sands, Harrahs, Tropicana and Ballys. According to information Kessler has received from both the County Managers office and the Internal Audit Department, the construction company involved in this action refused to testify against the building inspector and the case was dismissed. Furthermore, Kessler has learned that the Building Inspector Supervisor that was indicted regained employment in Clark County in a different division outside of Development Services after a judge ruled he was entitled to his job back.

12

Harrahs Rio Hotel - Building Division Complaint 06-00009803

This complaint was submitted via telephone by the complainant on August 23, 2006 at 2:58PM according to the Complaint Response form. It was entered into the case history report on August 23, 2006 at 2:41PM. The complaint alleges that the Rio Hotel & Casino, built three towers from the 3rd to the 19th floor without permits (check the super suites). He also mentioned the post tension cables on the slabs. According to the case history, on August 23, 2006 this complaint was assigned to Supervising Inspector 2.

Kessler located an email from the complaint desk dated October 17, 2006 asking Supervising Inspector 2 if he wants the case closed.

The next event involving this complaint is dated November 3, 2006 and listed as follow up to supervisor. Conversely, this event is listed as November 30, 2006 in the case log. On January 24, 2007 the complaint desk requested a follow up on the case. On February 20, 2007 the log indicates that the case was closed and sent to records by Supervising Inspector 2. After the February 20, 2007 log entry, an entry dated February 16, 2007 is seen in the case log indicating that Supervising Inspector 2 inspected 37 rooms from the 3rd to the 19th floors and that all of the floor plans, plumbing layouts, mechanical and electrical locations matched the approved plans on record. The work that had been done was completed in early 2006 and included new receptacles, switches, switch plates, plant, carpet, flooring, wall paper, new sinks with countertops, and new toilets, all of which, according to Supervising Inspector 2, require no permits. The only work found requiring a permit according to this report was the replacement of one light fixture in each unit. Supervising Inspector 2 indicates that the Rio representatives were given a copy of the

13

Clark County Building Administrative Code and advised regarding permit requirements. The complaint was closed.

Kesslers audit disclosed an action sheet applicable to case number 06-9803. Entries in the action sheet indicate that on January 23, 2007, Supervising Inspector 2 located plans on one wing of the tower at the Rio and that Records are searching for the others. On February 15, 2007, Supervising Inspector 2 indicates that he located the plan on all three wings and setup an appointment for Friday, February 16, 2007 to inspect the property. The next entry, dated February 16, 2007 by Supervising Inspector 2 indicates that the file may be closed.

Kessler found a memorandum from Supervising Inspector 2 to the Assistant Director discussing the actions he took in connection with this complaint. In this memo Supervising Inspector 2 indicates that the week following the complaint he visited the site of the complaint and could see no outward evidence of any construction that had recently taken place or construction currently underway in that tower. This is contrary to what is reported in the complaint log as there is no indication that this inspection occurred in the documentation provided.

Kessler also found an email dated October 22, 2007 at 6:53AM to the Assistant Director of the Building Division which states that the Supervising Inspector 2, walked with (Rio employee 1) and (Rio employee 2) when I went out with plans on 2-26-07, this information is also in the memo dated 10-6 of 07. The first time I went out was in August of 2006 after I received the initial complaint of construction without permits, and I walked through the tower without a Harrahs representative looking for some sign of work to be done. It was several weeks later before I found out that the work had been completed in March of 2006. Despite his assertion that he walked the property on February

14

26, 2007 in this email, Complaint History forms and other documents list the inspection as having been conducted on February 16, 2007. Additionally, the aforementioned memo of October 10, 2007 was not provided to Kessler.

Additional email correspondence was located dated March 27, 2007 between the Building Division Secretary and Building Division Assistant Director which indicates that the complainant was requesting a status of this complaint. The email states that the Assistant Director, met with the original contractor and did not find any issues and further stated that the Assistant Director would call the complainant for further details in a few days. This email is forwarded to Supervising Inspector 2 from Assistant Director on the same day. The email states, Please give this guy a call, briefly discuss what you saw at the Rio and with who, and advise that we have taken the complaint as far as we are going to at this time, as we are not an investigative dept., but we did look but found nothing.

Kessler spoke with Supervising Inspector 2 who indicated that in connection with this complaint he originally visited the site before speaking with the complainant. He added that during this visit he did not meet with anyone, only looked for signs of construction. Supervising Inspector 2 stated that he drove around common yards and walked through corridors. The following week, he added, the complainant called to obtain a status of the case and informed him that the construction took place a considerable time in the past. At this point, he informed Kessler, he searched for the plans and could not find them. He continued by stating that when he received the plans in January or February of 2007 he called and made an appointment with Rio employee 2, which was explained to Kessler as a normal course of action when handling a complaint.

15

For this meeting, Supervising Inspector 2 indicated that he met Rio Employees 1 and 2 at the security desk and that during his conversation with them they denied doing any work requiring permits. Supervising Inspector 2 could not recall how many rooms were visited during this visit, but did recall that all rooms visited were in wing 3 and were unoccupied at the time. Supervising Inspector 2 stated that what he observed matched the floor plans and that he never noticed where doors had been removed. He informed Kessler that he later learned that after the story appeared in the Las Vegas Review-Journal most of the renovation work was in wing 1 and on the 19th floor in all three wings. Supervising Inspector 2 asserted that during his visit, Rio staff changed the programming of the freight elevator causing the floor number that displayed on the elevator panel to read 19 when it stopped at the 18th floor. When Kessler attempted to clarify how Rio staff were also able to change the numbers on the floor by the elevators and the room numbers, Supervising Inspector 2 stated that they probably changed those numbers also, claiming that, these people arent completely honest. Supervising Inspector 2 stated that the Fire Department inspectors encountered a similar problem with the elevators. When Kessler subsequently spoke to Fire Inspectors, they acknowledged a similar problem in a passenger elevator, but said that when it was brought to Rios attention it was immediately fixed. When Kessler requested a copy of the report documenting this problem from the inspector that claims to have observed the problem, none was available.

Kessler also reviewed the GPS records for Supervising Inspector 2s vehicle and determined that on February 16, 2007 at 9:02AM the vehicle was reported at West Viking Road and South Valley View Boulevard. The log indicates that the vehicle was only at the location for 38 minutes. There were no logs available for the first undocumented inspection.

16

Kessler contacted personnel at Harrahs Entertainment and spoke with their Chief Litigation Officer in an attempt to speak with the Harrahs Entertainment employees whom Supervising Inspector 2 contended he met with at the site during his second visit. The Chief Litigation Officer of Harrahs Entertainment refused Kessler permission to speak with any employees of Harrahs Entertainment.

Based upon the above information, Kessler is of the opinion that the Building Inspectors handling these complaints were derelict in their duties by failing to properly inspect the property in question, and by falsifying the official documents indicating that the complaints were actually investigated. All indications suggest that no inspections were ever conducted.

Harrahs Las Vegas Hotel CCFD Complaint 07-297

On March 22, 2007 a complaint was received concerning Harrahs Hotel at 3475 S Las Vegas Boulevard. On April 4, 2007 the complaint was assigned to FD Inspector 5. The complaint alleges, Hotel has allegedly remodeled 1000+ rooms between the 3rd and 19th Floros [sic] without pulling any permits or having any inspections. They have over 800 penetrations in the fire separation walls between the rooms. Complainant can be contacted via cell The only action taken by FD Inspector 5 is noted as a conversation with Building Division Special Assignment Section Commercial Combination Inspector wherein it was stated, Spoke with (Special Assignment Section Commercial Combination Inspector) from Bldg. upon his inspection nothing found. No date is provided in this documentation as to the date of inspection by a Building Division inspector. It is unclear why no inspection was

17

conducted by this CCFD inspector in this matter, instead, the complaint is marked as unfounded and is referred back to the Building Division.

Furthermore, a search of the database of Building Division complaints did not reveal any complaint being logged in 2007 concerning this matter, and documentation was only noted for a previous complaint as referenced above as 06-6922 wherein it was noted that in August of 2006 the CCFD provided clearance for the Building Division to proceed with inspections in an attempt to issue a C of O. The documentation reviewed precludes any real understanding of when inspections were actually conducted, by what department, and what the findings and results were.

This complaint was deemed unfounded and closed on April 6, 2007.

Proactive Code Enforcement (PACE)

Many communities utilize a PACE program to determine the compliance of codes outside of the permit and complaint process. A PACE program, when properly established and implemented will allow the Building Division on a recurring basis to assure the public that the structures in Las Vegas are safe and code compliant. Additionally, a PACE program will be an impetus for shady property owners to have second thoughts about commencing construction not in conformance with the codes or without permits or the use of unlicensed contractors. Building Division Complaint Sample Kessler sampled a three month period of complaints lodged in 2006 to determine the length of time between opening, inspection, and closing of complaints. The audit revealed that no reliance could be placed on information in the complaint logs as it was discovered that complaints

18

were not logged appropriately, complainants statements were not accurately recorded, complaint resolutions were falsified and proper and complete documentation was not maintained.

In general, the complaints system as currently operating at the Building Division is severely flawed. There is a complete lack of accountability and checks and balances in the system, allowing for large lag times between cases being opened and closed and between the dates received and dates inspected. In fact, our sample disclosed that 23 complaints out of 97 in our sample took more than five days to investigate with five taking more than thirty days and one taking 397 days. What is extremely troubling is that Kessler found cases which were assigned and inspected before they were received. Additionally, many cases which indicated they were inspected and closed have little or no documentation to support the inspectors contention that they actually ever visited the sites in question.

Based upon the deficiencies Kessler noted in the complaint process, Kessler analyzed all of the complaints filed during this sample period in order to best be able to provide appropriate recommendations. The samples annexed herein display blatant examples of deficiencies in the complaint process.

Selective Recording of Complaints - Building Division

During the course of the audit Kessler learned that not every complaint that is lodged is officially recorded in the Building Division system. Manager of Building Inspections claimed that, we dont set up complaints on permitted work. This statement was contradicted by a Building Permits Specialist who advised us that it is common practice to setup complaints even though the work is permitted, as it is not always

19

able to be immediately determined that a permit has been issued at the site that is subject of a new complaint.

Kessler encountered instances of complaints which either were not logged properly or were later removed from the case history system. Examples of these are outlined below.

3880 Arville Street Suite K

This complaint was received by Supervising Inspector 2 on September 13, 2007 concerning 3880 Arville Street Suite K (Wonderful Massage Spa) from the property owners agent who owns the property. The complainant stated that work being done at the address had been approved by the Building Division but was not in compliance with the approved plans. The complainant further stated that the tenant and the tenants contractor had indicated to them that everything was okay and that the work had been approved by the county.

Kesslers audit uncovered that on September 17, 2007 Supervising Inspector 2 drafted a memorandum to Manager of Building Inspections indicating that no inspections for that address were recorded at the Building Division, so he assigned Building Inspector 7 to inspect the site. During the inspection it was found that, as the complainant suggested, the job did not match the approved plans and a Notice of Violation was issued. In this memorandum, Supervising Inspector 2 also states that he found inspection approvals for that address for underground plumbing and rough plumbing approved by Building Inspector 8 on September 7, 2007. The rough mechanical, rough electric and framing had also been approved on September 7, 2007 by Building Inspector 9. Building Inspector 9 also approved the drywall nailing inspection on September 10, 2007.

20

According to documents Kessler obtained, this is not the first time Building Inspector 9 has approved work that was not in conformance to approved plans. It was noted that he has been allegedly reprimanded numerous times in the past for similar deviations from accepted Building Division procedures. The documents further reveal that preferential treatment was provided to at least three contractors by Building Inspector 9 by allowing the contractors to call Building Inspector 9 directly to schedule same day inspections. It was also found that Building Inspector 9 worked outside of his assigned area, performed inspections in technical areas where he has not been trained, approved inspections without visiting the site, and performed certain inspections and approved inspections when the construction was not complete or not in compliance with the plans or the code.

Furthermore, Building Inspector 9 approved inspections out of sequence with the construction and inspection process and authorized electrical power for projects in direct violation of departmental policy. According to the documentation reviewed, many of Contractor 3s projects had multiple inspection disapprovals by the assigned area inspectors but were immediately approved by Building Inspector 9. Kessler also learned that final inspections were approved before rough inspections, that in many cases no site visits were done at locations approved by Building Inspector 9 based upon GPS documentation and that request and inspection result dates were backdated in the system by Building Inspector 9. It was also indicated in the file that Building Inspector 9 inspected Building Inspector 10s church in a matter of 10 minutes.

Kessler has been informed by various individuals at the Building Division that these practices occurred routinely and it was estimated that at least 30 40 occurrences were documented. Kessler interviewed a

21

number of individuals in attempts to determine why a complaint as serious as this one was not properly documented in the complaint log. No one at the Building Division would provide a plausible answer, with the only explanation provided that it was an employee issue and that it was handled internally.

Furthermore, Kessler spoke to Building Inspector 9 to obtain a better understanding of the circumstances surrounding this complaint and the related allegations. Building Inspector 9 informed Kessler that he did not dispute any of the allegations and that he would get telephone calls from the contractor every day for advice because they did not have a good command of the English language. Building Inspector 9 claims that he hadnt singled out this contractor in providing this service, simply stating that he did it for, good customer relations. Building Inspector 9 claims that other inspectors conducted inspections outside of their assigned area as well, but that he was singled out because he was allegedly involved in a lawsuit regarding sexual harassment. He also claimed that the Assistant Director and the Manager of Building Inspections both took swings at him. It is unfathomable why this matter was not referred to a law enforcement agency when management for the Building Division became aware of the situation approximately three months ago. Kessler recommended to the County Manager that this matter and the previous matters involving Inspectors 8, 9, 10 and any other involved inspectors be referred to law enforcement. It is our understanding as of the date of this report that the County Manager has taken action concerning these incidents and additionally authorized Kessler to contact a law enforcement agency and present the documentation gathered during the audit.

22

5100 E Tropicana Avenue Apartment 22

Kessler located an email dated February 15, 2006 from the complaint desk to Supervising Inspector 3. The email indicates that a complaint regarding 5100 E Tropicana was filed indicating that the building was full of drug users, dealers, and sexual offenders. The complainant states that she lives within walking distance of the building and that her children have friends who live there. The complainants daughter was raped in the building in an empty, vacant apartment. The complainant further stated that the empty apartments are open and are not boarded to keep people out. The complainant goes on to beg for help.

This complaint was not logged on a Complaint Response form until August 21, 2006, almost a half year later, an unacceptable lapse between the time a complaint was lodged and when it is officially recorded and attended to. According to the case history log, Special Assignment Section Commercial Combination Inspector visited the subject property with a Health Department inspector and found no violations of the building code. The Building Division case was closed on August 22, 2006. The Health Department inspector found numerous issues at the site and stated that management offered tenants alternate accommodations, which were declined. A complaint as serious as this clearly should have been addressed promptly, recorded and investigated. It is a serious misdeed on the part of the Building Division to allow so much time to lapse between record and inspection.

Investigative Fees

According to the Clark County Building Administrative Code 2004 Clause 22.02.360 Work Without A Permit, Section A, Whenever any work for which a permit is required by this chapter has been commenced

23

without first obtaining a permit or exceeds the scope of a valid permit, a special investigation shall be made before a permit may be issued for such work.

Further referenced is the Clark County Building administrative code 2004 Clause 22.02.360 Work Without A Permit. Section B states that, An investigation fee, in addition to the permit fee, shall be collected whether or not a permit is then or subsequently issued. The investigation fee shall be assessed at a rate equal to double the appropriate permit fee required by this chapter in the appropriate tables with a maximum fee of $4,000.00.

Clause 22-03.365 Other Inspections and Fees states that, An existing building or structure which is not covered by an existing valid building permit may be inspected by the Building Official at the owners or other interested partys request upon payment of the appropriate fee. This service shall be available at the option of the Building Official for a rate of seventy-five dollars ($75.00) per hour per inspector, with a onehour minimum. It appears that Building Division personnel have interpreted the code to allow for a quarter of an hour increments when the charges exceed the one hour minimum despite the fact that Kessler has been informed that the charges should be broken down in half hour increments by Building Division management. Additionally, the Building Division Building Plans Examination Division short log check-in form dated 04-04 states the rate per Clark County Building Administrative Code is ($75.00/hour-1/2 hour minimum). No documentation in either the Administrative Code or the Policies and Procedures appears to justify these practices.

Kessler spoke to various individuals at the Building Division to obtain an understanding of how these investigative fees are handled.

24

These fees are supposed to be assessed as double the permit fee as noted above. Kessler was provided with an accounting of the investigative fees collected for 2007 applicable to Work Without A Permit. These fees totaled $29,122.70 and were only collected on residential construction. It is clear that no attempt was made to collect any double permit fees from high-rise buildings, multi-family dwellings, and mobile trailer parks, the structures under the responsibility of the Building Division in terms of complaints. Despite Kesslers sampling of complaints filed and Notices of Violations (NOV) issued by the Building Division Kessler could not locate one instance where a strip property or any property under the jurisdiction of the Building Division was assessed this investigative fee.

When Kessler questioned the Permit Application Department, Kessler was informed that the inspectors have the leeway to waive these fees and that the work without a permit penalty is not charged if it is not reported by the inspector. Kessler also spoke to the Assistant Director of Inspections who informed us that his department routinely submits Notice of Violations (NOV) to the Permit Application Department and that those documents should be the basis of collecting the investigative fee. Kessler was further informed that these investigative fees are only charged when an inspector notifies the Permit Application Department to charge them.

Recommendations

Kesslers audit disclosed a vast injustice regarding the assessment of penalties regarding homeowners and commercial/multi-family properties. Kessler recommends that penalties be assessed uniformly and consistently to all property owners who are guilty of violations. Kessler also recommends a change in the Clark County Building administrative code 2004 Clause 22.02.360 Section B to remove the $4000.00 fee limit, which appears only to be in place for the benefit of the properties

25

encountered during this audit which were not assessed any fee. The failure to assess appropriate fees on the part of the Building Division leads to questions as to why certain groups are exempt from the Building Administrative code. Furthermore, the knowledge by this special group that penalties will not be assessed gives them no impetus to comply with regulations and further the public perception of corruption in the complaint process. By requiring the assessment of penalties as Kessler recommends, public safety will be improved via pressure put upon property owners to comply with building codes.

Kessler also recommends that in addition to the penalties currently in place, consideration should be given for a special penalty fee when life safety violations involving the public are discovered.

Other Fees

Kessler was also provided an accounting for 2007 of same day inspection fees ($33,525.00), overtime inspection fees ($392,297.80) and special inspection fees ($23,932.50). These fees are collected by Building Division Inspectors from a variety of sources including the owners of high-rise buildings, multi-family and residential buildings. These fees are usually not related to complaints and reflect the amount collected for work conducted without a permit requiring special assistance as referenced in the administrative code or for non-routine or expedited inspections.

During various conversations with Building Division personnel, Kessler obtained explanations regarding fee collections that for larger jobs the owner deposits money with the building department and the inspectors write up slips for the time spent inspecting the projects. The time gets credited against the money on deposit at a rate of $75.00 per man hour. These charges are referred to as overtime charges.

26

Kessler was further informed by Building Division employees that except for advance deposit accounts as noted above, the inspectors collect these fees in both cash and check form although checks are encouraged. Another source provided contradictory information, indicating that cash is not accepted at all, claiming that if the owner does not have a check the inspector will instruct the owner / contractor to bring or mail the check to the Building Division. If they fail to pay, allegedly, the next inspection is held up. It has been stated to Kessler that in many cases no effort is made to bill for or collect these fees.

Retention of Records

During the course of the audit, it was determined that the Building Division and CCFD Inspectors routinely discarded official business records including their notes, inspection reports, and other documentation crucial to effective review and follow-up of existing complaints.

Furthermore, some of the Building Division Inspectors Kessler spoke with indicated that they forwarded their notes to the building permits specialist (complaint desk) to have the documents scanned and filed. Our audit disclosed that either the inspectors were falsely reporting to Kessler that the documents were sent for scanning, or the documents were sent to the complaint desk but never processed for scanning and retention. This is a significant weak point in the internal controls of the complaint process as key data was not available for this review.

Demeanor

The Inspector is a professional representative of the Building Division and CCFD and should at all times be courteous, respectful, helpful, reasonable and knowledgeable. Although code enforcement is

27

similar to law enforcement it is not police work and Inspectors are not expected to be confrontational. If for any reason the code violator becomes confrontational the Inspector should leave the site immediately and contact the Inspection supervisor to discuss appropriate actions. While Kessler concurs with the premise that an inspector is not law enforcement, it is clear that an Inspector must be an investigator to determine if complaints exist.

During the course of the audit, inspectors repeated the mantra that they are not investigators. Kesslers discussions with management of the Building Division supported this mantra, as does the email correspondence of March 27, 2007 referenced in the Rio complaint above.

Another position which was common among the inspectors concerning the Harrahs complaint was that the complainant who happens to be a whistleblower was a crybaby after he was discharged and many of the inspectors Kessler spoke with questioned the motive behind his complaints indicating that they did not understand why he did not come forward while he was working at the location, contending that he should have known and immediately reported that work was being done without permits.

The very nature of a complaint review is that complaints lodged need to be investigated fully in order to determine their validity. In essence, these inspectors and management are indicating to Kessler that they are not there to perform the essential functions of the complaint process or that they are not fully aware of what these functions should entail.

28

Recommendations

Kessler recommends that all inspectors be instructed that the public serves as their eyes and ears in many cases, and that complaints from these individuals should not be taken lightly. Additionally, training should be provided to the inspectors concerning investigative techniques involving complaints, including ethics in investigating and investigative report writing. Inspectors should also be instructed that they should not be making assumptions when investigating a complaint, and that all determinations they make should be based upon fact since public safety is often involved in the complaints lodged with the Building Division and CCFD.

Kessler also recommends that in situations involving suspected corruption or the appearance of corruption, these matters be referred immediately to an outside agency for a proper and independent investigation. As referenced in this report, one Building Division Inspector was found to be conducting complaint investigations outside of his assigned area and demonstrating the appearance of questionable behavior and favoritism with the only explanation being that it was good customer service. This is an example of an incident being investigated within the department that would be more appropriately handled via an outside agency as Kessler recommends. It should be noted that upon bringing this matter to the attention of the County Manager, she immediately requested that law enforcement commence an independent investigation.

Ability to Alter Computer Data

During Kesslers audit a test was conducted to determine the ease with which computerized data regarding complaints could be changed to

29

reflect different dates and information contained in the case history reports. The test, conducted with the assistance of a Building Division employee determined that although the complainants name and the narrative of the complaint can be edited it is documented, whereas the section where the inspectors notes is reported can be edited without leaving a trail. This is a significant weakness in internal controls insomuch as inspectors and others have the ability to change information. The case history reports are intended to be one of the definitive records which summarizes individual complaint histories along with the supporting documentation to the history. The fact that the supporting documentation is often missing and that the computerized documenting the inspectors work is able to be easily changed indicates that little reliance can be placed on any of the information contained in these logs provided to us.

As noted in the complaint reviews above, instances were also noted where inspectors were presented with the supporting documentation they prepared and case history reports that resulted from this documentation that were provided to Kessler and admitted that these documents were falsified. It should be noted that these points were stressed to the Building Division in an Internal Controls review document from the Clark County Internal Audit department and at the conclusion of that review management of the Building Division stated, Inspections recognizes the identified deficiencies and is taking measures to correct the issues and still provide the needed flexibility for the inspection staff.

Recommendations

Obviously, the Building Division did not seriously address the deficiencies outlined by the Clark County Internal Auditor. Kessler suggests that the recommendations contained in this report be assessed by

30

management and immediately implemented so that a recurrence of the events which transpired surrounding the Rio complaint should never happen again.

GPS Technology

It has been brought to Kesslers attention that a significant tool available to Building Division management is not being utilized to its fullest potential. Kessler has learned during the audit that the GPS logs which reflect the travel patterns and stops of Inspectors are only reviewed in situations which might result in a conflict and not on a routine basis to determine if Inspectors are performing the tasks they are assigned.

Recommendations

Kessler recommends that GPS be utilized on a regular basis to spot check an Inspectors day log against the GPS records to ascertain that what the Inspector claims to be doing is reflected.

31

Clark County Fire Department Complaint Process

The Clark County Fire Department Fire Prevention (CCFD) complaint process is outlined in a one page memo entitled Complaint Process (Exhibit 3). The process indicates that complaints can be submitted via, several different formats, telephone, fax, mail, e-mail or in person. Following submission, complaints are to be entered into an electronic file. According to the memo, complaints are able to be edited after they are entered. Once it is entered, it is processed and assigned to inspectors. After the complaint has been investigated, the required paperwork is placed in the Deputy Fire Marshals mail slot. The process indicates that the Marshal should then review and forward the paperwork to the designated clerical staff to enter into the database and close the complaint. It is then submitted to imaging.

Recommendations

The Complaint Process document of the CCFD addresses the manner in which complaints are accepted but not who they may be received from. This document also does not address where complaint details are originally recorded prior to being entered into the Complaint database. The lack of a procedure allows for the recording of complaints on scraps of paper which Kessler has been informed are discarded following their alleged transcription into electronic format since its been determined that the original complaint is not always what is transcribed. Kessler recommends the following to assist in accordance with the Nevada Revised Statutes Chapter 239-Public Records.

As with the Building Division, the inspectors notes are considered public records and might be used as evidence in the event of criminal prosecution, Kessler recommends that all notes be clear, concise,

32

comprehensive and free of abbreviations and that notes shall be entered for every action or activity associated with a case, including but not limited to: Inspections Phone Calls Research Office Visits Hearings Letters and Faxes sent or received

Kessler recommends that when initially received, complaints be entered onto an approved form and that any notes regarding the complaints, handwritten or otherwise, be maintained in the file. The approved form should then be used to enter the information into the database.

Kessler further recommends that the ability to edit complaints as detailed in the complaint process be limited and security permissions placed on the database. CCFD management personnel indicate that the database maintains a log of anyone entering or editing a field, although Kessler was not provided with any evidence to demonstrate that this log exists.

The documentation Kessler reviewed regarding CCFD complaints does not have any record of the time of day that complaints are received readily available. It is unclear whether this information is recorded at all. Kessler recommends that this information be recorded on the Complaint forms and maintained in the Complaint database.

Kessler also recommends that the method by which a complaint was submitted be maintained on the Complaint forms and in the

33

Complaint database as it is also unclear whether this information is currently recorded at all.

CCFD personnel have indicated that on occasion complaints are not recorded on the day they are received. Kessler recommends that it be mandatory for complaints to be entered into the database, reviewed and assigned on the same day that they are received. This practice will eliminate the lag time Kessler has observed between receipt of complaints and assignment, which in some cases was over one month.

The complaint process should be expanded to incorporate accountability for documentation that is required to be included in a complaint file, requiring the existence of a completed complaint form/inspection record.

Documentation reviewed relative to CCFD complaints during the course of the audit showed discrepancies between the Inspector listed on the complaint log and the Inspector who signs the complaint form. Kessler recommends that care be taken when recording the assigned Inspector into the electronic database so that an auditable trail is created as to who was responsible for the complaint.

The CCFD complaint forms contain fields to summarize the resolution of a complaint, including Unfounded, Corrected, Referred, and Other. During the course of the audit, it was often noted that Unfounded was checked without appropriate documentation of whether an inspection was conducted or any details surrounding how it was determined that the complaint was unfounded. Kessler recommends that a detailed description of the acts taken to determine the resolution of a complaint be documented on the complaint form. It was also noted that there is no direct area for Inspectors to record where and at what date and time of day an inspection

34

occurred. This should be immediately incorporated into the complaint form and implemented as procedure.

During Kesslers verification of the complaint process in attempting to determine if anyone actually conducted an on-site inspection of complaints marked unfounded, Kessler was referred to the Inspectors day sheets. In many cases, these supplemental sheets which are not part of the complaint process, was able to support a contention that a particular inspector visited the site. Troubling though, was that on a number of occasions certain Inspectors day sheets were not completed or were either lost or deleted from the computer system, thus making it impossible to ascertain whether a complaint site was ever inspected. Kessler recommends that all staff be required to complete day sheets and that supervisors are held responsible for ensuring that these sheets are completed and maintained on a daily basis.

As with the Building Division, a recurring weakness noted during Kesslers audit is that documents from all phases of complaint resolution are discarded. It should be mandatory that any documents generated during the complaint investigation be preserved in records.

Kessler recommends that accommodations be made on the CCFD website to allow the public to submit complaints electronically and anonymously.

Additionally, a voicemail box should be established so that callers can leave pertinent information concerning suspected violations after hours. Kessler called the general number after hours and was unable to leave a message.

35

As seen with Building Division, many of the complaints reviewed demonstrated an extraordinary amount of time between when the complaints were received to when they were resolved in light of the urgency of the matters involved. Kessler recommends that the below mandate be established which prioritizes the complaints by potential hazardousness:

1. High Priority, requiring an inspection immediately 2. Medium Priority, requiring an inspection within three days 3. Low Priority, requiring an inspection within twenty days

Kessler also recommends that all complaints filed within the last few years be reviewed by CCFD management. Where the complaint is of a serious nature and it is not documented sufficiently to determine if a true investigation was conducted we recommend that the complaint be reinvestigated.

After Hour Complaints

According to documents reviewed by Kessler, only six complaints were lodged through dispatch. Based upon information received during the audit, it appears that dispatch normally tells the person lodging the complaint via telephone to call fire prevention rather than opening an incident for TOA themselves (TOA references To Other Agency). When they do create a TOA it is normally for after hour calls. The only other entry that they might make is that fire prevention was notified. Kessler spoke to a fire inspector who indicated that he knew complaints were being received after hours and not recorded by dispatch. The inspector further stated that due to the fact that Las Vegas is a 24/365/7 city, it should be imperative that complaints lodged after normal business hours be treated with the same urgency as complaints lodged during the day.

36

Clark County Fire Department Complaint Sample

Kessler was provided with the complaint log for the periods January 2006 through December of 2007. A sampling was conducted of 303 complaints provided which were filed primarily between the dates of February 2007 and May 2007. Only two were dated in 2006. Out of the 303 complaints, 66 had no assigned dates on the paperwork, 8 were lacking inspector names, and 179 had no inspection form attached with only notes jotted on the complaint form.

Kesslers audit showed that 224 complaints took 30 days or less to resolve after they were opened. 3 of the 303 had completed dates that were prior to the date the complaint was received. 7 had more than 200 days between when the complaint was received and when it was closed. 12 were between 100 and 200 days and 57 took between 30 and 100 days.

Out of the 303 complaints, 24 had no complaint log entries, 23 had no complaint forms attached and 99 had insufficient documentation to support the disposition or the notes marked on the complaint form.

Selective Recording of Complaints CCFD

Among the documents we received from CCFD was a Record of Communications dated July 26, 2007 documenting a telephone call between a CCFD fire official and an Engineering Department employee of Harrahs. The document is referring to a complaint and indicates that the conversation encompassed notification that a former employee of Harrahs indicated that Harrahs was doing construction without the proper permits and that life safety systems were breached and later covered up without the proper repairs. The memo goes on to indicate that Harrahs is alleging

37

that the former employee is retaliating because he is angry for losing his job, assuring the fire official that permits are obtained anytime life safety systems are repaired. Based upon this communication, the fire official recommended that no further action be taken (Exhibit 2).

Undue Influence

During Kesslers discussions with CCFD staff, CCFD staff complained that on more than one occasion they were directed by CCFD management not to write violations concerning life safety issues, alleging that there was undue influence exerted by county commissioners over CCFD management. The CCFD staff requested that they not be identified in this report because they were afraid for their job.

It should be noted that an audit concerning this matter was not within the scope of Kesslers engagement and thus no further work has been conducted regarding these allegations.

Recommendations

Although the allegations claim that this influence occurred in the recent past, and that the CCFD staff claims to have specific documentation concerning these issues, it does not appear that this matter has been referred to or investigated by any outside agency. Kessler recommends that Clark County provide all staff who perceive wrongdoing be provided with a means to report wrongdoing, fraud, or ethics violations without fear of retribution, lawsuits, or media attention. Kessler has also been informed that there is a whistleblower ordinance in place in Clark County and employees should be routinely advised of their rights under this ordinance.

38

Trade Union Management Interview

Kessler spoke with a trade union management official who advised us that it is common practice for the hotels to create a company to circumvent the system. Kessler was informed that these companies use unskilled, unqualified, and unlicensed people to perform the trade thus avoiding any licensing or permit requirements. In fact, in his experience, he said that blueprints and specs are sometimes not even used and that the project is built as they see fit. He indicated that many of his members are afraid to report these violations for fear of losing their job and being blackballed from future projects.

This individual also informed Kessler that another ploy used by the hotels is to use a licensed individual to pull the permits but then there is no supervision or oversight by this licensed tradesman. In fact, this individual stated that he has observed that these licensed individuals have been known to be affiliated with more active permits than it was possible for them to handle. In large part, this is a Nevada State Contractors Board issue and it is recommended that the County Manager forward these allegations to the board.

This individual also informed Kessler that it is common practice for some inspectors to conduct drive-by inspections when conducting routine construction approvals during the permitting process.

Recommendations

As stated elsewhere in this report, it is imperative that Building Division implement a proactive inspection program and immediately begin assessing significant penalties to any owner or contractor in violation of Building Division codes. Kessler also recommends that any

39

hint of negligence or corruption on the part of the inspectors be immediately investigated.

Comps To Building Division and CCFD

NRS 281.481, subsections 1, 2 and 4 provide the following regulations regarding a public employees acceptance of gifts.

1. A public officer or employee shall not seek or accept any gift, service, favor, employment, engagement, emolument or economic opportunity which would tend improperly to influence a reasonable person in his position to department from the faithful and impartial discharge of his public duties.

2. A public officer or employee shall not use his position in government to secure or grant unwarranted privileges, preferences, exemptions or advantages for himself, any member of his household, any business entity in which he has a significant pecuniary interest, or any other person.

4. A public officer or employee shall not accept any salary, retainer, augmentation, expense allowance or other compensation from any private source for the performance of his duties as a public officer or employee.

Despite these regulations, a number of individuals with whom Kessler spoke advised Kessler that some Building Division and CCFD inspectors did not want to create a hostile environment at the hotels where they were assigned to inspect complaints since it was alleged that certain inspectors receive comps from the hotels including meals, show tickets, stays at other properties and branded clothing.

40

Kessler was informed by CCFD management that in one situation, in the first quarter of 2007, an architectual firm sent gift certificates to the Fire Plans Checker. Documentation we have secured indicates that the Fire Plans Checker returned the gift certificates to the firm in accordance with Clark County Rules and Regulations (Exhibit 4).

Kessler also read in the Las Vegas Review Journal that following the fire at the Monte Carlo hotel, Many of the emergency responders who helped put out the fire and assist with the evacuation were invited to attend the show as guests of Burton and the resort. According to CCFD management the Fire and Hazard Prevention Services-Division returned the offers of gifts from the Monte Carlo.

It was also noted during Kesslers field audit which took place in December 2007 at the offices of the Building Division, Kesslers staff observed contractors bestowing gifts of food upon employees in the permit division. According to Clark County personnel with whom Kessler spoke, Kessler was advised that it is an acceptable practice for any Clark County employee to accept food gifts from citizens as long as it is shared among the entire office staff.

41

APPENDIX

42

Building Division Complaints Complaint 06-00010656 This complaint involved Harrahs Mardi Gras Tower and was received on September 12, 2006 at 2:22PM according to the complaint response form used by the clerk that accepts the complaint. Upon a review of the Case History Report maintained by the Building Division, it was found that the report indicates that the complaint was entered into the system on September 12, 2006 at 1:43PM and was assigned to an inspector at 2:15PM which is before the time the complaint is shown to have been received. This complaint alleged the installation of cabling for power or other uses on the third floor penetrating trusses and firewalls without a permit. According to the Case History Report on September 19, 2006 at 1:15PM an entry is made simply stating that an inspection was performed by the inspector we are referring to as Building Inspector 1 on September 15, 2006, indicating there were no violations found. On September 18, 2006 at 1:17PM Supervising Inspector 1 closed the case. There is no reference anywhere in the documentation provided during the audit indicating that any work was observed by Building Inspector 1 with or without a permit.

Kessler discussed this complaint with Building Inspector 1 who indicated that to the best of his recollection that he spoke with Harrahs employee AA whom he met at the hotel and accompanied him to the site of the complaint. The inspector stated that the area was locked and that Harrahs Employee 1 had to unlock the cage. He indicated in his discussions with Kessler that he was at the job site for at least an hour to an hour and a half and was there between 2:00PM and 4:00PM in the afternoon. The inspector also indicated that while he was there, he parked his car in the parking garage limousine drive up area of the hotel. The inspector indicated that he found a contractors job box at the site of the

43

complaint, opened it, and found building department permits contained therein.

When questioned about which permit covered the work that was being performed, and requesting the permit number, Building Inspector 1 was unable to provide the information. Instead, he telephoned DynaElectric Co. of Nevada and requested a permit number from them for any work done on the third floor.

A few days following this telephone call, Kessler was provided with permit number 06-34130 which was issued on July 26, 2006 which covers the installation of conduit for a wireless cellular telephone system. The application for the permit indicates no plans. Also contained in the documentation provided to us by Building Inspector 1 was a set of plans drawn by American Tower dated February 08, 2006 for the installation and operation of an in-building distributed antenna system.

Remarkably, Building Inspector 1 was the inspector assigned to this permit and according to inspection records of the Building Division, he conducted rough electrical inspections for this job on October 19, 2006, October 20, 2006, October 24, 2006, December 14, 2006 and a final on December 14, 2006. It is questionable if the permit that was supplied to us corresponded to the un-permitted work alleged in the complaint and it is also questionable as to how Building Inspector 1 could be unfamiliar with the complaint when questioned especially because he was the assigned inspector on the property and allegedly inspected the same work encompassed in the complaint on five occasions, with the first inspection one month after the complaint.

According to the GPS log for the vehicle driven by Building Inspector 1 on the day the alleged complaint inspection took place we

44

found an entry at 12:23PM indicating that the inspector parked his vehicle at Winnick Avenue and Audrey Street and from the time he shut off the vehicle to the time he started the vehicle at this location the total elapsed time was 39 minutes.

Kessler also spoke with Supervising Inspector 1, who closed the complaint. He indicated that he did not remember what the complaint was about but was informed by Building Inspector 1 that permits had been issued for the work. When Kessler requested any notes or documentation that was available Supervising Inspector 1 indicated that he did not maintain copies, having thrown them away, but contends that copies were forwarded to the records department for scanning. A check of the records department indicated no copies were available.

45

Complaint 06-00000485

According to the Complaint Response form, this complaint was taken on January 19, 2006 at 9:23AM. The complaint alleges that extensive remodeling of suites without building, electrical, mechanical and plumbing permits was conducted at 2870 South Maryland Parkway, Las Vegas NV. Documentation contained in the complaint file indicates that on February 16, 2006 an email was sent to Supervising Inspector 1 requesting a status report. On February 17, 2006 Supervising Inspector 1 indicates that Building Inspector 2 has been unable to make contact with the complainant. On March 10, 2006, another request is made of Supervising Inspector 1 in which he responds that the case was already closed, as permits had been obtained for the work.

Kessler spoke with the complainant who indicated that she was never contacted by anyone from the building department and that no inspection was ever done, since the suite reported in the complaint was a suite which she had recently rented to expand her practice from an adjacent suite. She indicated that she knew extensive renovations took place in this building without permits. Furthermore, she also filed a complaint concerning construction which covered electrical outlets with paneling. The complainant stated that this was the only complaint the Building Division ever followed through on. As of the date of our conversation with the complainant, no one from the Building Division had contacted the complainant or followed through with an inspection on the areas she complained about.

46

Complaint 06-00008223

According to the Complaint Response form, this complaint was filed on July 14, 2006 at 2:30PM. The complaint alleges Harrahs Casino working without permits on electrical and a new slab at the Carnival Court. According to the Case History Report, this complaint was entered into the system on July 14, 2006 at 2:49PM. This report indicates that the case was assigned to Building Inspector 1 and was inspected on July 18, 2006 revealing that framing, plumbing, and electrical were installed without permits. A Notice of Violation was issued as was a Notice to Correct by August 22, 2006. Notice was served on Harrahs Employee 1. On September 18 of 2006 Supervising Inspector 1 indicates that permit number 06-33284 was obtained for the work performed on this job and that the complaint should be closed. A review of the permit file indicates that the permit was issued on September 8 of 2006 to Contractor 1 for the installation of a new kiosk with electrical and plumbing. Also contained within the permit file were plans which were dated August 14, 2006 listing Contractor 1 as the contractor of record. The file also contained electrical plans for Contractor 2 which is a company owned by Harrahs Employee 1. Kessler contacted Harrahs Employee 1, who is no longer employed by Harrahs, first by dialing the telephone number contained on the building plans. The phone was answered by the Carpenter Shop Foreman of Harrahs who indicated that the telephone and telephone number was given to him when employee AA retired from Harrahs about 6-8 months ago. This individual refused to provide his name.

Further research provided an additional number for Harrahs Employee 1. A call placed to this number reached the subject, who stated that he had a company known as Contractor 2 which he utilized for plan and permit purposes while employed by Harrahs. He stated that the job referenced in this complaint was a small job, approximately 600 square

47

feet, and that he was told that no permit was required to do the job. The employee refused to supply the individuals name that stated that no permit was required. Kessler then inquired as to whether there were other situations where new construction did not require a permit. His only answer was that everything is being blown out of proportion by the newspapers and that good people are losing their jobs. He further stated how competent the Clark County building inspectors were. Kessler then requested information as to how plans could have been drawn just two days prior to a permit being issued and approved the day following submission, and that the rough inspections could be completed two working days following issue of the permit, with the final inspection completed in just three more days. Harrahs Employee 1 would only reiterate how competent the building inspectors were. Kessler also questioned him as to how the work, as cited in the July Notice of Violation, could have commenced prior to July without plans, and how electrical work was completed when the Violation was issued. Harrahs Employee 1 had no answer. The complainant in this matter informed Kessler independently that a building inspector told Harrahs Employee 1 that he wouldnt have required him to have a permit for this project if someone had not filed a complaint.

48

Complaint 05-11404 and 04-10981

According to the complaint response form, a complainant filed a complaint regarding the MGM Mirage Resort and Casino on September 30, 2005 at 3:48PM. The complaint alleges that the company was installing two transformers and switches in the UPS room and that the work is being done without the proper permits. Kessler also reviewed the Case History Report which indicates that on September 30, 2005 at 2:48PM an entry is made establishing the complaint. That same day the complaint is sent to Supervising Inspector 3. On October 20, 2005 the complainant sends a follow up to someone identified on the Case History Report as JNH. On November 1, 2005, an entry is made in the log for no violation found, no unauthorized or unpermitted installations found. Kessler noted that Supervising Inspector 2 is referenced on the log as the inspector. Little paperwork is available regarding this complaint, and that which Kessler reviewed contains contradictory references to different Supervising Inspectors B and C.

Kessler spoke with the complainant/whistleblower regarding this complaint, who indicated that she was an electrician employed at the MGM Mirage at that time. She indicated that both she and the inside engineer were never contacted by anyone from Building Division concerning the complaint and that her experience has been that complaints are not taken seriously. She informed Kessler that she previously filed a complaint in 2004 alleging substantial work being done without permits, including a new welding shop built on the property, remodeling a buffet in the casino, remodeling of old slot repair shop, addition of office in the engineering department, spa remodeling, and that plumbers installed electrical work and gas and steam lines in the buffet were constructed by uncertified welders. Kessler obtained a copy of this complaint, numbered 04-10981, dated November 1, 2004 at 1:34PM. The only documentation

49

available was the Case History Report which indicates that the complaint was turned over to Building Inspector 4, who was supervised by Supervising Inspector 3. An entry in the log dated January 27, 2005 reads, Permits haven [sic] applied and violations have been fixed per (Supervising Inspector 3). The case is closed on this date. On the complaint response forms resolution area, the section for No Violation Found indicates that the complaint is closed, but the area regarding Notice of Violation Issued is checked although despite an extensive search, the Building Division could not locate said Notice. Additionally, the resolution area indicates that the complainant was notified by Supervising Inspector 2. The complainant maintains that she was never notified and that the violations were never corrected.

50

Complaint 06-00009389

A complaint was filed on August 16, 2006 at 3:04PM concerning the Ramada Express in Laughlin. The complaint alleges that the complainants wife had fallen and broke her hip and wrist on what they believed were faultily designed stairs leading from the main road to the Ramada Express entrance. According to the complaint response form, on August 17, 2006 (notably the Case History report shows the assignment as having been done August 16, 2006) the complaint is assigned to Building Inspector 5 who visits the location and conducts a field inspection, determining that the steps were constructed without county building permits or inspections. Additionally, the stairs did not comply with the current or previous codes, and a Notice of Violation was issued on August 18, 2006 (notably, the Case History report shows the inspection completed on August 23, and that the Notice of Violation was issued on August 18).

The case history report indicates follow ups to the inspector on August 25, 2006, October 3, 2006, November 16, 2006 and January 24, 2007. As of the date of this report, this case was still listed as pending with no resolution and no permit has been secured.

51

Complaint 06-00000488 and 06-00001115

This complaint was initially called in concerning Sushi Rikki located at 3900 Paradise Road Suite B on January 20, 2006 at 10:25AM. The complaint alleges remodeling without building, electrical, mechanical or plumbing permits. On February 1, 2006 Supervising Inspector 1 sends an email to the complaint desk indicating that on January 25, 2006 an inspection was made by Building Inspector 3 and no violations were found and asks that the case be closed.

On February 8, 2006 at 10:15AM, seven days later, another complaint regarding 3900 Paradise Road Units A and B (Firefly Restaurant) was lodged alleging tenant doing improvements without permits. An email dated February 13, 2006 indicates that Building Inspector 3 performed an inspection on February 9, 2006 and a Notice of Violation was issued for work done without a permit. Follow up was scheduled for March 15, 2006. Two additional Notices of Violation were issued on March 9, 2006 and April 10, 2006 for this property, continuing the first Violation Notice.

On June 12, 2006 a certified mail, return receipt requested letter was sent to the owner of record indicating that permits must be obtained by July 12, 2006. According to an email dated July 10, 2006 permits were obtained for the work at Dragonfly Restaurant under permit number 0613991, issued on April 26, 2006 and 06-27476 issued on June 12, 2006 and the case was closed. Sushi Rikki and Firefly Restaurant are not further addressed in any of the documentation regarding this location.

Kessler spoke with Building Inspector 3 and inquired as to how he could not have discovered the violations during his first visit to the property and why follow up was conducted in June when a permit was

52

issued in April. He had no explanation and had no documents to show that he even went out on the first visit, and no answer as to how the violations were overlooked. He said that the inspector saves no documents, either giving them to the Supervising Inspector or throws them away as they serve no purpose. He further stated that when no violation exists at a complaint site no paperwork is completed, the practice is just to tell the supervisor that no violation exists.

53

Complaints 06-00011334 and 08-00000241

A complaint was filed with the Building Division on September 26, 2006 concerning demolition and remodeling work without permits at the Rolex Store, The B Bar and a new clothing store at the Wynn Resort. According to the Case History report an inspection was made by Building Inspector 3 and he stated that no violations existed, referencing that work was performed on Permit number 06-26846. Kessler reviewed the permit 06-26846 which was issued on July 6, 2006 and determined that the permit was for a retail center remodeling of La Flirt. This permit had nothing to do with the complaint that was filed, yet the complaint was closed on September 26, 2006.

Kessler inquired of Building Inspector 3 as to why a permit that did not reference the complaint was cited as evidence to close the complaint. Kessler also requested copies of any reports documenting that an inspection was even done. Building Inspector 3 indicated that he has no documents to show that he went out to do the inspection, as he does not keep case files and any of his personal papers are thrown away.

During the course of the audit, Kessler uncovered information that on January 5, 2008 Supervising Inspector 1 re-opened this complaint following our discussion regarding the complaint with him, as number 0800000241. According to the Case History report, it appears that research was done and determined that the B Bar was completed under permit 0551450. The permit for the Rolex store was 05-53373 and the permit for the mens accessory store was permit 06-4386. According to the Case History report, all of the inspections were done on this store through final approvals. Supervising Inspector 1 determined that the complaint was not valid and closed the case.

54

It is unclear as to how such misinformation could be contained in the first Case History report, and how a complaint with so much missing information could be closed. The lack of documentation regarding the initial complaints leads Kessler to question whether an actual inspection was ever performed.

55

Complaint 06-00009455

Complainant called in a complaint regarding the Flamingo Hotel swimming pool on August 17, 2006. The complaint alleges the complainant, stepped down on one of the seats in the pool while holding a drink in one hand and not using the hand rail provided. She stated that she injured herself. She is questioning the codes for the pool. The case was assigned to Building Inspector 3 and Supervising Inspector 1. An entry in the Case History report indicates that an inspection was performed on August 21, 2006 and no violations were found. The case was closed on the same day.

Kessler spoke to the complainant in this matter who informed us that when she called to file a complaint she was treated harshly and as if it was an imposition for the complaint to be recorded. She further stated that the narrative as contained in the case history report was not what she reported. The complainant indicated that she complained that there was no hand rail provided and that the pool was not properly marked for depth. This is a clear example of why it is important that original documents be maintained as in this case the complaint was incorrectly transcribed or carelessly documented by the individual taking and recording the initial complaint. The complainant stated that she attempted to follow up concerning this complaint to no avail.

56

Complaint 06-00007995

According to the complaint response form, on July 11, 2006 at 2:56PM a complaint concerning 3885 S Decatur Boulevard was supplied to the Building Division by CCPRO. The complaint was a long letter which points out a number of health related issues and the fact that there is no public elevator and that the building is not handicapped accessible. The complaint form lists the complaint as, Employee says the woman restroom has no air vents and no handicapped accessibility. The complaint was assigned to Building Inspector 6 on July 11, 2006. No work was done on this complaint until February 1, 2007, more than 200 days following its assignment to an inspector.

On February 1, 2007 Special Assignment Section Commercial Combination Inspector (the supervisor responsible for handling complaints) claims he visited the site and determined that the building had handicapped accessibility, based on the fact that there were handicapped ramps leading to the building, and parking spaces with signage indicating the spaces were reserved for handicapped individuals. In the Case History report, he also indicates that it was an anonymous complaint and that most issues dealt with Health Department or maintenance issues, indicating that he needed specific suite numbers, etc.

Kessler spoke with Special Assignment Section Commercial Combination Inspector, who indicated that he never checked the restrooms, claiming that he did not have a suite number. Despite this, the case was closed with no violations found.

57

Complaint 06-00008360

On July 18, 2006 a complaint was opened applicable to 6347 Elvido Avenue. The narrative of the Case History report indicates the following, (Special Assignment Section Commercial Combination Inspector) made an inspection, the temperature pressure relief line for the water heater is not routed to the outside of the building (UPC 608.5). The space under the stairs on the east side of the building has been enclosed for storage (IBC 1005.3.2.2). An entry in the Case History log for July 18, 2006 indicates that Special Assignment Section Commercial Combination Inspector made an inspection and that a Notice of Violation was to follow.

The next entry dated July 18, 2006 indicates, Wrong address, closed case and sent to records. Kessler questioned Special Assignment Section Commercial Combination Inspector who had no explanation.

58

Complaint 06-00008361

On July 18, 2006 a case was opened in reference to 9810 Ramhorn Canyon Street. The narrative of the complaint reads that, (Special Assignment Section Commercial Combination Inspector) made an inspection, service equipment riser and panel have become disconnected from the building (NEC 110.13A). The next entry in the Case History log indicates that the case was assigned to Special Assignment Section Commercial Combination Inspector and on the same day the log indicates an inspection was done and a Notice of Violation was to follow. The next entry on the log, still on the same day indicates, Wrong Address, closed case and sent to records. Special Assignment Section Commercial Combination Inspector again had no explanation.

59

Complaint 06-00008397

On July 18, 2006 a case was opened in reference to 484 Albert Avenue. The narrative of the Case History report reads, (Special Assignment Section Commercial Combination Inspector) made an inspection, a storage area has been constructed under the stairs in violation of (IBC1005.3.2.2). The next entry reads that it was assigned to Special Assignment Section Commercial Combination Inspector and that he made an inspection on the same date with Notice of Violation to follow. On July 19, 2006 a Notice of Violation was sent to the owner of the property indicating that the violation must be corrected by August 24, 2006. An entry in the log for August 24, 2006 indicates that a follow up to the inspector is necessary. On October 10, 2006 an entry is in the log indicating Special Assignment Section Commercial Combination Inspector indicates that correction was complete. Within the case file, the only documentation showing that the violation was corrected is a handwritten note on the Notice of Violation indicating, Received call. Correction completed. Close case. The case is closed on that date. Again, it is shown that Special Assignment Section Commercial Combination Inspector did not visit the site of a violation to ensure that the corrections were completed.

60

Complaints 06-00009308 & 06-00009309 & 06-00009310 & 06-00009311

Each of the above-referenced complaints was submitted by the same complainant involving properties managed by the complainants company. According to the case history report complaint 06-00009308 was opened on August 11, 2006, 06-00009309 was opened on August 15, 2006, 06-00009310 was opened on August 15, 2006 and 06-00009311 was opened on August 11, 2006.

Complaint 06-00009308

On August 15, 2006 the complaint response form indicates that at 7:25AM complaint 06-00009308 was filed by the management company concerning 3200 Cameron Street C and indicating that the owner is remodeling and taking walls down without permits. An inspection is purported to have been done by Special Assignment Section Commercial Combination Inspector who lists There is no evidence of any work being done. No rubbish, no construction materials, no contractor or trucks. No workmen. Spoke with (complainant). With no work going on and no violation exists for work without permits per (Special Assignment Section Commercial Combination Inspector). The case is closed on August 16, 2006 despite the fact that the log entry regarding resolution is shown as August 15, 2006.

Complaint 06-00009309

On August 15, 2006 the Case Response form shows that this complaint, regarding 3262 Jericho Street D and indicates that the owner is remodeling and taking walls down without a permit is received. It was assigned to Special Assignment Section Commercial Combination Inspector. Contradictorily, the case log shows that complaint was

61

established on August 11, 2006. On August 15, 2006 an entry identical to the previous case is entered into the case log regarding no evidence of work being done. This case is closed on August 16, 2006 despite the fact that the log entry regarding resolution is shown as August 15, 2006.

Complaint 06-00009310

On August 15, 2006 this complaint, regarding 4471 Rich Drive C, indicating that the owner is remodeling and taking walls down without a permit is opened, yet it is assigned on August 11, 2006 to Special Assignment Section Commercial Combination Inspector. The narrative on the Case History report where the complaint is usually listed shows that no violation was found as of August 16, 2006 per Special Assignment Section Commercial Combination Inspector. This case is contradictorily shown as having been closed on August 16, 2006 and August 22, 2006.

Complaint 06-00009311

This complaint is established on August 11, 2006 regarding 4444 W. Desert Inn Road B and is assigned to Special Assignment Section Commercial Combination Inspector on August 15, 2006 regarding owner remodeling and taking walls down without permits. The complaint response merely indicates no evidence on August 16, 2006 and the case is closed, yet the Case History report uses the same verbiage as the other cases regarding no evidence of work being done.

Kessler spoke with Special Assignment Section Commercial Combination Inspector and asked him how four properties, all turned in by the managing agent as having work done without a permit, could be found to have no violations. Special Assignment Section Commercial Combination Inspector admitted that he never entered or attempted to

62

enter the premises concerning these complaints. Special Assignment Section Commercial Combination Inspector added that after driving around the neighborhood and seeing no evidence of construction materials he closed the complaints.

63

Complaint 06-00012031

On October 12, 2006 a complaint was filed at 3:29PM indicating that a living room ceiling collapsed at 3770 South Swenson Apartment 304B. The case was assigned Special Assignment Section Commercial Combination Inspector on October 12, 2006. The handwritten narrative on the Complaint Response form indicates that on October 13, 2006, Spoke w/office crews working on ceiling today. Phone # provided is for the office. Bldg Dept not involved in maintenance issues. No violations. Please close case. Contradictory information is contained in the Case History report, which lists that on October 13, 2006 Special Assignment Section Commercial Combination Inspector, Made an inspection, spoke with office, crews working on ceiling today. Phone # provided is for the office. This narrative indicates that an inspection was made while the handwritten never makes mention of an actual visit.

Kessler spoke with Special Assignment Section Commercial Combination Inspector who indicated that he called the office and was advised that work was being done to correct the problem.

64

Complaint 06-00008368

A complaint was submitted by CCPRO on July 18, 2006 at 4:10PM regarding 3895 Palos Veras Street indicating that the service equipment riser and panel boards had become disconnected from the building (NEC 110.13A). According to the Case History report Special Assignment Section Commercial Combination Inspector was assigned the case at 1:03PM on July 18, 2006, prior to the submission time of the complaint. The next entry on the Case History report indicates that Special Assignment Section Commercial Combination Inspector made an inspection at 1:03PM on July 18, 2006 with the results of Notice of Violation to follow. On July 19, 2006 a certified Notice of Violation is mailed to the owner.

Confusingly, on August 24, 2006 a follow up to the inspector regarding the complaint is sent to the complaint desk. Another request for information is shown as the next log entry as having been sent out on July 29, 2006. The case is closed on August 29, 2006. Documents contained in the complaint file indicate that, Friend of owner called spoke with friend 8/25 wants till Monday 8/28 to complete. No further indication is given in this file that an inspection was conducted to verify that correction was made.

65

Complaint 06-00012027

On October 12, 2006 at 3:05PM a complaint is received concerning 5207 Garden Lane Apartment C. The complaint alleges all electrical fixtures are shorting and the appliances are working. This appears to be an error in transcription on the part of the Building Division Building Permits Specialist. According to the Case History report the case is assigned to Special Assignment Section Commercial Combination Inspector on October 12, 2006. This report also indicates that on October 13, 2006 Special Assignment Section Commercial Combination Inspector, made an inspection, spoke to (complainant). She stated that the electrician had been in over the weekend and corrected the problem. I advised her that was good news because as a maintenance issue there was nothing I could do for her. The case is closed on October 16, 2006.

Upon further review of the documentation contained in the file Kessler found handwritten notes on the Complaint Response form which indicate that on 10/13 phoned 09:42 no answer/called 10:42 no answer, call 12:40 no answer. The next entry on this document is dated October 16, 2006 and reads, Spoke with (complainant). She stated that the electrician had been in over the weekend and corrected the problem. I advised her that it was good news because as a maintenance issue there was nothing that I could do for her. Please close case.

It is apparent that despite an inspection having been documented on the Case History report on October 13, 2006, no inspection was ever conducted at the subject location.

66

Complaint 06-00009037

On August 9, 2006 at 8:57AM a complaint concerning 530 Los Feliz Street was received regarding, Various preious [sic] projects have resulted in enclosing the service entrance equipment and not allowing sufficient safe working space provide adequate access and clearance at panel. According to the Case History report, the complaint was received on August 8, 2006 and assigned to Special Assignment Section Commercial Combination Inspector. The next entry in the Case History report indicates that Special Assignment Section Commercial Combination Inspector, made an inspection, various previous projects have resulted in enclosing service entrance equipment and not allowing sufficient safe working space. Issued a Notice of Violation.

The file contains a Notice of Violation issued on August 8, 2006 indicating that the problem had to be corrected by October 15, 2006. The next entry in the case history report is dated October 15, 2006 as a follow up to the inspector. On October 18, 2006 the Case History report lists, Email sent to (Special Assignment Section Commercial Combination Inspector). The next entry dated October 24, 2006 indicates follow up pending, followed by an entry dated October 16, 2006 indicating corrections complete, closed case and sent to records Special Assignment Section Commercial Combination Inspector.

There appears to be no documentation in the file indicating that an inspection was ever done at the location. Again, this complaint documentation contains numerous errors in date sequencing in the log information and demonstrates a lack of responsibility by the inspector.

67

Complaint 06-00008359

According to the Case History report, this case was opened on July 18, 2006. It should be noted that the Case Response form is missing from the documentation provided. The Case History report goes on to state that the case was assigned to Special Assignment Section Commercial Combination Inspector on July 18, 2006. The narrative of this case reads, (Special Assignment Section Commercial Combination Inspector) made an inspection, the pressure relief line for the water heater is not routed to the outside of the building UPC 608.5. Cover plates are missing on switches / plugs at the laundry room (NEC 110.27).

On July 19, 2006 an entry is made in the Case History that a Notice of Violation is sent certified mail return receipt requested. The date that corrections need to be made by is listed as August 24, 2006 on the Case History. The Notice of Violation was not able to be produced by the Building Division. The Case History report has an entry dated July 22, 2006 that the mail was returned to sender, unable to forward. According to the Case History log, on August 31, 2006 Special Assignment Section Commercial Combination Inspector sends a second notice via certified return receipt requested mail to the address. A review of the file indicates that the second Notice of Violation was shipped via regular US Mail and was returned to sender, attempted not known unable to forward.

On September 20, 2006 an entry is noted, corrections complete (Special Assignment Section Commercial Combination Inspector) Close case and send to records. No evidence is seen of any permits having been issued or a follow up inspection having been done to prove that these corrections were made.

68

Complaint 06-00008719

This complaint was submitted on July 31, 2006 regarding 5940 W Flamingo Road. On July 31, 2006, a building inspector reported, Work without permit at Suite 10. Considerable work (all permits) is being done. Contractor is (Contractor 4). Her contractors license is (XXXX)? Her cell phone number is (XXX-XXX-XXXX). On February 6, 2007, an entry is made into the case history report showing the status as pending. No entries are made following this entry and there is no indication that the matter was ever resolved.

Kessler spoke with Building Division staff who claimed that the contractor was referred to the Contractors Board for doing work without a permit. None of this information is documented on the complaint form and when Kessler searched for this referral on the Contractors Board website, none was found. In fact, when Kessler spoke with one Building Division staff member his exact comments were, I thought it went away.

From information obtained during the audit we were able to identify that Contractor 4 owns Contractor 3 as noted below in the section regarding selective recording of complaints.

69

Complaint 06-00004859

On May 4, 2006, at 12:08PM the complaint response form indicates, Roof drain from the adjacent property is discharging into his property. The complaint location is noted as 4870 W Oquendo Rd. An email dated August 31, 2006 from the complaint desk requests an update of the case. Building Inspector 11 who was assigned to the case responds that he didnt have this case and requests a new copy of the complaint, to which the complaint desk responds on the same day, I put a copy in your mailbox.

On October 18, 2006, the complaint desk again requests a status update, and inquires as to whether they can close the case. On the same day Building Inspector 11 sends an email to Building Inspector 12 and Building Inspector 13 asking, Did one of you two investigate this? Building Inspector 13 responds, I did not investigate this property. Again on the same day, Building Inspector 11 emailed Building Inspector 13 stating, Please call the lady and make an appointment to look into her concerns. The email exchange that day continues with Building Inspector 11 telling the complaint desk, I made contact with (XXXX) and this has been resolved. Closing the case and sent to records.

This case was closed five months following its opening. No details are provided during this exchange as to whether an inspection was ever done, or to the degree of involvement of Inspectors 12 and 13.

70

Complaint 06-00004264

This complaint involves 4718 W Twain Avenue. This complaint alleges that an inspector found bars over egress windows. The documents Kessler received simply indicate that certified mail letters were sent to the owners on April 27, 2006 and according to the complaint response form, non-deliverable letter sent. No other resolution is noted in this file.

71

CCFD COMPLAINTS Complaint 07-302

On March 26, 2007 the CCFD received a complaint concerning the Wynn Hotel, located at 3131 S Las Vegas Boulevard. The complaint was assigned to FD Inspector 1 on April 4, 2007. The complaint states that, The fire alarms went off on Wednesday evening. Complainant was in the theatre and hotel personnel began to evacuate the guests. They would not however let them go out the nearest fire exit even while the alarms were going off. They made them exit back out to the gaming area. The complaint form indicates in handwriting, Per conversation with Chief Engineer, may have been conducting test. The case is closed May 20, 2007.

There is no documentation provided which allows Kessler to determine when and if any physical inspection was conducted. To wait 9 days before assigning this case to an inspector and 55 days for the inspector to merely place a phone call concerning this complaint seems to be an inordinate amount of time.

72

Complaint 07-218

On March 2, 2007, the CCFD received a complaint regarding the Sands Expo and Convention Center located at 201 E Sands Avenue. The complaint was assigned to FD Inspector 2 on April 4, 2007 and the nature of the complaint specifies that, Security is padlocking the emergency exits on the second floor at 5:30PM, despite a large number of people still in the building. This complaint is not inspected until July 10, 2007 at which point the FD Inspector 2 informed a Venetian hotel employee to, Remove all chains and padlocks from exit doors immediately. These doors are not permitted to be locked at any time, for any reason nor by any method. These doors are designed for exiting and shall not be locked or obstructed at any time. Any future locking of these doors will result in further actions by this department to include citations. The case is then closed. No follow up was conducted to determine if the Sands Expo and Convention Center complied with these directives. It took 130 days for this written warning to be issued following receipt of this complaint, leaving untold amounts of employees and tourists at the center in jeopardy and unable to quickly exit the building in the event of an emergency.

73

Complaint 07-318

On March 28, 2007 a complaint was lodged concerning Caesars Palace Pure Nightclub located at 3570 S Las Vegas Boulevard. The complaint stated that there are Several hundred people waiting around in front of this club on any given night. There is no line just a large mass of people pushing and shoving to get in. This is unsafe in case of fire or other emergency. FD Inspector 3 was assigned this case on April 4, 2007 and placed telephone calls to the location and spoke with a representative whom the inspector reports said, They have bouncers and security inside and outside to avoid problems however when crowd lets out from coliseum is when people are pushing and shoving.

The case is listed as completed on April 5, 2007, but another note in handwriting dated April 11, 2007 appears on the complaint form indicating, Called above number and left message. It is unclear as to what, if any, resolution to this matter was realized.

74

Complaint 07-326

On April 3, 2007 a complaint was received concerning the Royal Hotel and Casino located at 99 Convention Center Drive. The complaint was submitted by a licensed architect after he informed the manager of the hotel of the complaint and they denied anything was wrong. The complaint included both building department and fire department concerns including unlicensed construction activity in public corridors, steel wires protruding from wall moldings, wall finishes were unfinished raw material in violation of building code, fire exit doors violated life safety codes, doors were propped open to allow fresh air ventilation due to sewerage backups, and fire alarms were suspect for working order.

On April 6, 2007 FD Inspector 4 inspected the property and found various violations including fire exit doors not closing, debris on center staircase, faulty exit signs, no records of smoke detection testing in rooms and no sprinkler inspection records. FD Inspector 4 found at the time of his visit no emergency exits propped open and considered these minor violations allowing the hotel to have the items corrected by April 13, 2007. The complaint form indicates that the case is closed on April 17, 2007 yet the inspection record indicates that the case was completed on April 22, 2007. It is not clear when any inspection took place since the inspection record indicates numerous dates next to the deficiencies without any corresponding explanations.

75

Complaint 07-272

On March 19, 2007 an anonymous complaint is filed concerning Harrahs Las Vegas at 3475 S Las Vegas Boulevard. The complaint was assigned to FD Inspector 5 on March 19, 2007. The complaint alleges that, Near Oyster Bar, in the back of the house there is a hallway that is designated an emergency exit that is not kept clear. They have built a wall in the middle of the hallway separating it now making two hallways approximately 3 feet wide. It appears from the documentation provided that on March 23, 2007 FD Inspector 5 simply faxed the complaint form to Building Division Supervising Inspector 3 requesting, Can you have someone look into this.

A review of the complaints of the Building Division for the corresponding period does not reveal any corresponding complaint being logged by the Building Division. Kessler asked the Assistant Director to search the records to see if he could find the complaint, to no avail. Therefore, it is unclear if this matter has ever been addressed by either department.

76

Complaint 07-486

This complaint was received on May 9, 2007 in connection with a report of a resident of a housing complex located at 3500 Paradise Road grilling, on the patio and then dumps the hot charcoals over the edge of the balcony. The case complaint file was assigned to FD Inspector 6 on May 17, 2007 and was closed on May 22, 2007 when the inspector simply jots the phrase, nobody home. No further investigation is shown to have been conducted.

77

Complaint 07-375

This complaint which was lodged on April 12, 2007 and assigned to FD Inspector 7 involves a caller stating that at 7200 Las Vegas Boulevard the, locker room located on the north side near the pool area is a 15 x 20 utility type room used as a waiting area for the consolidated resorts timeshare sales staff (60-80). Complaints of improper exiting, overcrowding, and hot. Staff are told they will be fired if they wait outside the room. Sprinkler system installed.

On April 16, 2007 FD Inspector 7 visited the location and found the room was designated as a utility type room of approximately 879 square feet with tables and chairs located inside the occupancy would have been 58 people max. The inspector noted that currently there are 48 chairs and 15 tables in the room. The inspector indicated that it constituted a fire hazard regarding exiting. Based upon the linear feet of exiting the room should have only had an occupancy level of 12 people max. The inspector informed a representative of the property that effective immediately a limit of 12 people was placed on the room and all of the excess tables and chairs had to be removed.

The complaint was listed for re-inspection on May 23, 2007. There is no indication in the file that this property was ever re-inspected.

78

Complaint 07-312

On March 28, 2007 a complaint is lodged concerning 4770 Nevso Drive concerning, Welding company has large amounts of propane. There are also fumes seeping through the walls. This case was not assigned to FD Inspector 8 until April 4, 2007. The only notation on the file was that it was unfounded on June 10, 2007. There is no explanation provided in the documentation in regards to the two plus month lapse and as to how it was determined that the complaint was unfounded. On January 17, 2008 after being questioned about this incident it appears that CCFD had an inspector call the landlord of the building and it was determined that the tenant was no longer on site.

79

Complaint 07-452

A facsimile was received on May 7, 2007 by CCFD concerning 7160 Darby Avenue, a group home in which 9 elderly people reside. The facsimile goes on to state that despite notifying the caretaker, a battery operated smoke alarm in the building constantly beeped for over a month.

The complaint was assigned to FD Inspector 3 on May 9, 2007. Attached to the complaint was a print out dated May 7, 2007 indicating that only six beds were approved for this facility. FD Inspector 3 did not visit the location until May 22, 2007. At this time, he found the smoke detector chirping, no records on site for the smoke detectors and a paddle locked front door. The inspector informed the facility that they had 48 hours to correct the violation. The case is listed as closed on May 22, 2007 but an entry on the complaint form indicates, Verified corrected on 5/24/2007.

It is unclear why the delay involving a life safety issue occurred and furthermore why the overcrowding of the facility was never addressed by the inspector.

80

Complaint 07-503

On May 9, 2007 an email was received by the Fire Prevention Bureau from what appears to be the local fire station requesting assistance concerning an odor at 600 S Eastern Building M Suite 14 of a strong smell of gasoline in this location and neighboring suites as well. The email indicates that an attempt was made on the above date to make contact with the owner but no one answered the door and the door was locked. The odor was noted to be present but, not strong enough to warrant forcing entry. The email continues stating, Per the reports I have received, this sounds like a chronic problem with no resolution.

The complaint was not logged in as being received until May 14, 2007 and was not assigned until May 17, 2007 to FD Inspector 9. It appears that on June 5, 2007, since the odor was still present, another complaint was received via email. FD Inspector 9 simply sends an email to the original complainant requesting a timeframe when the odor is more prevalent and further requesting that an email be sent every time the odor is highly prevalent indicating that the case would be kept open. The very next day, the complainant responds indicating that the odor is prevalent when, we arrive at about 7:45 and, the only access would be early in the AM or mid-afternoon and that the owner is only there 2-3 on Fridays for payday.

The next entry we have on the complaint is simply a handwritten note that FD Inspector 9 talked to the complainant on August 1, 2007 regarding resolution of the odor problem. The complaint was closed as being corrected. FD Inspector 9 handwrites, stopped by several times and checked the landscaping business and found all in order. The inspector does not record when he visited the location nor does he indicate details of any visits.

81

Complaint 07-491

This anonymous complaint which was received May 9, 2007 involved the Harley Davidson Caf located at 3725 Las Vegas Boulevard and states, Stairway is full of stuff and the exit doors are difficult to open. The complaint is assigned to FD Inspector 10 and is not investigated until May 17, 2007 at which point the only reference in the file is, corrected on the spot 17 May 07. It is unclear why it should take so long for a complaint of this nature to be inspected.

82

Complaints 07-444, 07-445 and 07-446

These complaints are all dated as being received on May 7, 2007 and concern 4282, 4300 and 4318 Ridge Crest Drive. These complaints were assigned to FD Inspector 11. Attached to the complaints is a facsimile dated April 24, 2007 indicating that these complaints have been previously filed regarding health hazards and fire hazards due to accumulation of debris, hardware, and miscellaneous objects. The complaint goes on to delineate the objects as including discarded and old signs, placards, machinery and other hardware on the front of the property. Also noted are the presence of commercial vehicles and inoperative vehicles that are continually parked in front and back of the property and cars, old parade floats, models of space vehicles and shuttles, all over. Additionally, the complainant notes that carts filled with tools and parts are left in front of the property and in the driveways and that workman habitually use the front of the property and driveways as a shop to build, repair and assemble vehicles, models and parade floats. Continuing, the complainant indicates that there have been 2 fires at the property since the complainant resided in the neighborhood.

It is also alleged that the owner contends that he knows people at code enforcement and has allowed them to have a luncheon at his home. It should be noted that CCPRO (code enforcement) would be the agency responsible for enforcing code violations. According to the complaint form FD Inspector 11 inspected the site on May 10, 2007 simply noting on all three complaints that there is no trash or debris visible on the property from a public way and the case was closed on the same day.

Kessler has obtained information indicating that these properties in a residential neighborhood are considered tourist attractions and are open to the public during a certain period each year.

83

Complaint 07-162

A complaint was received via email on February 12, 2007 concerning a number of issues at the Tropicana at 3801 S Las Vegas Boulevard. This complaint, which was assigned to a fire inspector on February 14, 2007, alleges that areas were not in compliance with NFPA fire code requirements. Included was the fact that stairways did not have a proper latch but instead the latch was replaced by a pull handle. Additionally, a storage area was constructed inside the stairwell under the stairs. Also in the complaint was that the housekeeping staff was storing a carpet cleaner inside the stairwell and that fire rated labels on the sides of the door had been painted over. The only resolution to this complaint was the corrected box showing an x through it on the CCFD inspection record. Most interesting was that this matter was listed as completed on February 13, 2007, one day before the complaint was assigned to an inspector.

84

Complaint 07-560

On May 17, 2007 a complaint is received via email regarding gas cans and barrels with unknown contents at 6463 High Sierra Drive which the complainant felt were a danger. This complaint was forwarded to CCFD from the Code Enforcement office and assigned to FD Inspector 12 on June 1, 2007. This complaint is shown as completed on June 14, 2007, being checked unfounded with a note on the complaint for stating, Nothing visible from the front or sides of house. No clear indication is given on the form as to when an inspection was conducted.

85

Complaint 07-277

On March 20, 2007, a complaint is received regarding business conducted in a home without a business license and strong paint fumes at 2347 Orinda Street. This complaint is assigned to FD Inspector 13 on March 22, 2007. Not until May 11, 2007 is the file noted as being completed, being marked as unfounded. Notes on the complaint file dated May 11, 2007 indicate, New owner at this address stated that the old owner did have a welding business. The new owner does not have any welding equipment or painting equipment. It is unclear from this note whether an on-site inspection was ever conducted and why it took so long for the complaint to be resolved.

86

INDEX* A Abatement action 6 Ability to Alter Computer Data 1, 29 Accessory structures 6 Accommodations 10, 23, 35 Accountability 3, 19, 34 Activity 9, 33 unlicensed construction 75 Administrative Services and Building Division 5 Administrative Services Public Response Office 4, 5 Agency 4, 9, 29, 36, 38, 83 Air vents 57 Alarms 72, 75 All over 83 Allegations 14, 22, 38-9 claim 38 Alter Computer Data 1, 29 American Tower 44 Answer 48, 53, 66 plausible 22 Antenna system, distributed 44 Apartment 66 22 23 304B 64 Apartments, empty 23 Appointment 14-5, 70 April 10 52 12 78 13 75 16 78 17 75 22 75 26 52 27 71 2007 11 Areas assigned 21-2, 29 direct 34 Arville Street 20 Assigned area inspectors 21 Assistant Director 14-5, 22, 76 of Inspections 25 Audit 3, 4, 7, 8, 18, 22, 26-8, 30-1, 34, 36, 38, 43, 54, 69 Audit Department 12 Auditor 30 August 11 61-2 15 61-2 16 51, 61-2 17 51, 56 18 51 21 23, 56 22 23, 47, 62

23 3, 13, 51 24 60, 65, 68 25 51 29 65 31 68 Avenue, Albert 60 B Bally 12 Bars 54, 71 Bldg 17 Bldg Dept 64 Board 39 contractor's 5 Branded clothing 40 Buffet 49 Building code 6, 23, 26, 75 department 5, 6, 26, 44, 46, 75 Building Administrative 26 Building Department Inspections Services Building Permit 6 Building Division 1, 3-5, 7-11, 14, 17-28, 30-2, 35-6, 39-41, 43-4, 46, 49, 50, 54, 57, 68-9, 76 case 23 and CCFD 5, 11, 27, 29 complaint process 7 inspectors 40 Inspectors 27 Building Division Building 66 Building Division Building Plans Examination Division 24 Building Division Complaint Process 1, 5 Building Division Complaint Sample 1, 18 Building Division Complaints 12-3, 43 Building Division Inspectors 26, 29 Building Division Inspectors Kessler 27 Building Division in June 11 Building Division Kessler 25 Building Division procedures 21 Building Division Secretary and Building Division Assistant Director 15 Building Division Special Assignment Section Commercial 17 Building Division Supervising Inspector 76 Building Division system 19 Building Inspections 19, 20, 22 Building Inspector 11-2, 20-2, 43-8, 502, 54, 56-7, 69, 70 assigned 20 Building Inspector Supervisor 12 Building inspectors 17, 48 Building Official 24 Building permit, valid 24 Burton 41 Business 86 entity 40 landscaping 81

87

license 86 welding 86 C Caesar's Palace Pure Nightclub 74 Callers 7, 10, 35, 78 Cameron Street C 61 Carlo, Monte 41 Carnival Court 47 Carpenter Shop Foreman of Harrah 47 Carpet cleaner 84 Case files 54 histories 5 Case Action 8 Case History 51, 54-60, 62, 64-8 Case History Report 30, 43, 47, 49, 50 Cash 27 Casino 49, 75 CCFD 1, 3, 4, 11, 18, 32, 37, 72-3, 79, 80, 85 complaint forms 34 process 5 complaints 33-4 inspection record 84 inspectors 18 management 36, 38, 41 personnel 33 personnel 34 staff 38 claims 38 website 35 CCFD COMPLAINTS 72 CCPRO 4-7, 57, 65, 83 Ceiling 64 living room 64 Cell phone number 69 Cellular telephone system 44 Center staircase 75 Certificate of Occupancy 12 Certified mail letters 71 Chairs 78 Charcoals, hot 77 Charges 24-6 Chief Engineer 72 Chief Litigation Officer 17 of Harrah 17 Clark County 4, 12, 30, 38, 41 Clark County Building 24-5 Clark County Building Administrative Code 14, 24 2004 23 Clark County Building Department 6 Clark County Building Division Development Services 4 Clark County building inspectors 48 Clark County Code 6 Clark County Department 5

Clark County Development Services Building Division 3 Clark County District Attorney 12 Clark County Fire Department 3, 32 Clark County Fire Department Complaint Process 1, 32 Clark County Fire Department Complaint Sample 37 Clark County Fire Department Personnel 4 Clark County Fire Department Sample 1 Clark County Personnel 4 Clark County Rules 41 Clause 23-5 Clearance 18, 67 Closed case 58-9, 67 Code compliant 18 enforcement 8, 27, 83, 85 requirements 84 violator 28 Code Enforcement Services forms 8, 9 Codes 18, 21, 24, 51, 56 administrative 24-6 Combination Inspector 17 Commercial properties 6 Commitment 4 Company 39, 47, 49 complainant's 61 Complainant 7, 9, 10, 13, 15, 17, 20, 23, 28, 46, 48-50, 56, 61, 66, 72, 81, 83 notes 83 Complainant's daughter 23 name 30 wife 51 Complaint 05-11404 1, 49 06-00010656 1, 43 06-00011334 1 06-00012027 2, 66 06-00012031 2, 64 07-162 2, 84 07-218 2, 73 07-272 2, 76 07-277 2, 86 07-297 17 07-302 2, 72 07-312 2, 79 07-318 2, 74 07-326 2, 75 07-375 2, 78 07-452 2, 80 07-486 2, 77 07-491 2, 82 07-503 2, 81 07-560 2, 85 database 32-4 information 5

88

desk 12-3, 23, 27, 52, 65, 70 documentation 67 file 11, 34, 46, 65, 77, 86 form FD Inspector 83 forms 5, 33-5, 37, 69, 72, 74-6, 80 completed 34 histories 30 investigations 9, 29, 35 location 70 log 14, 18, 22, 34, 37 entries 37 process 4, 5, 7, 10, 18-9, 26-8, 32-5 document 32 entitled 32 resolutions 9, 19, 35 response 62 form 12-3, 23, 43, 46-7, 49, 51, 57, 61, 64, 66, 70-1 review 28 site 35, 53 Complaint History forms 15 Complaints 06-00011334 54 07-444 2, 83 above-referenced 61 anonymous 57, 76, 82 edit 33 handling 57 initial 11, 14, 55-6 Kessler 10 occasion 34 recording 7 of 8, 32 residential 6 residential building 4 setup 19 system 19 Compliance 18, 20-1, 84 Comps 40 Comps to Building Division and CCFD 1 Comps To Building Division and CCFD 40 Computer system 35 Computerized data 29 Concise 9, 32 Conformance 18, 21 Confrontational 28 Connection 14-5, 77 Construction 14-5, 18, 21, 37, 46, 48 base 6 company 12 company's name 12 illegal 11 materials 61, 63 residential 5, 25 Consultant basis, technical 6 Contact 6, 7, 22, 28, 46, 70, 81 Contacted personnel 17 Contends 45, 83 Contention 35

inspector's 19 Contractor 12, 15, 21-2, 27, 39, 47, 61, 69 Contractors Board 69 Contractor's job box 43 license 69 Controls insomuch 30 Convention Center Drive 75 Conversation 7, 16-7, 26, 37, 46, 72 Copy 13, 16, 49, 70 Corrected box 84 Corrections 60, 65, 67-8 Corrective action 4 Corridors 15 Corruption 26, 29, 40 suspected 29 County 5, 20 building 51 commissioners 38 County Manager 4, 12, 22, 29, 39 Criminal prosecution 9, 32 Crowd lets 74 Crybaby 28 D Darby Avenue 80 Database 18, 32-4 electronic 8, 34 Date 17, 22, 34, 37, 46, 50-1, 60, 68, 81 sequencing 67 Dated April 74, 83 Dated August 47, 70 Dated February 13-4, 23, 44, 52 Dated March, located 15 Dated November 13, 49 Dated October 13-4, 66-7 Days 6, 10-2, 15, 19, 36-7, 44, 48, 52, 57, 72-3 Debris 75, 83 Decatur Boulevard 57 Dedicated public servants 4 Deficiencies 19, 30, 75 Demeanor 1, 27 Department 11, 18, 25, 29, 40, 45, 73, 75-6 Department of Administrative Services Public Response Office 4 Department, engineering 37, 49 Department Personnel 4 Departmental correspondences 5 policy 21 Deposit accounts 27 Deputy Fire Marshal 32 Dereliction of Duties 1, 11 Desert Inn Road 62 Development Services 12 Display blatant examples 19

89

Documents 5, 9, 10, 21, 25, 27, 30, 32, 35-7, 53-4, 56, 65-6 Kessler 21, 71 list 15 official 17 Dollars, seventy-five 24 Doors 16, 73, 75 Double permit fees 25 Dragonfly Restaurant 52 Drive-by inspections 39 Driveways 83 Drug users 23 Duplex residences 6 During Kessler 38 Duties 1, 11, 17, 40 E Eastern Building 81 Egress windows 71 Elapsed time, total 45 Elderly people 80 Electrical fixtures 66 Electrical locations 13 Electrical outlets, covered 46 Electrical work 48 installed 49 Electrician 49, 66 Electronic file 32 Electronic format 32 Elevator, public 57 Elevators 16 Elvido Avenue 58 Email 7, 12-5, 23, 46, 52, 67, 70, 81, 845 correspondence 15, 28 exchange 70 Emailed Building Inspector 70 Emergency 73-4 exits 73, 75-6 responders 41 Employee AA 47 Employees 4, 10, 17, 38, 40-1, 48, 57, 73 cast 4 public 10 Employment 40 indicted regained 12 Encountered instances 20 Enforcement 6 actions 6 complete 6 issues 5, 6 law 22, 28-9 English language 22 Entry 13-4, 36, 43, 45, 49, 50, 56, 58, 60, 62, 67-9, 80-1 next 14, 58-60, 65-7, 81 Environment, hostile 40 Errors 66-7

Ethics 10, 29 Evidence 9, 32-3, 54, 61-3, 68 No evidence 62 Evidence, outward 14 Excess tables 78 Exit 72-3 doors 73, 75, 82 signs, faulty 75 Expedite responses 6 Expense allowance 40 Experience 39, 49 F Facsimile 7, 80, 83 Failure 4, 26 Falsified reports 3 Favoritism 3, 29 received 12 Faxes 9, 33 FD Inspector 17, 72-83, 85-6 February 12 84 13 84 14 84 15 14 16 14-6, 46 17 46 20 13 2007 37 Fee collections 26 Fees 1, 24-7 maximum 24 special penalty 26 File 6, 8, 14, 21, 33, 47, 56, 60, 65, 678, 71, 78-9, 82, 86 Fire Department 16 Fire and Hazard Prevention ServicesDivision 41 Fire Inspectors 16 Fire Plans Checker 41 Fire Prevention 32 Fire Prevention Bureau 81 Firefly Restaurant 52 Flamingo Hotel 56 Flamingo Road 69 Floor number 16 plans 13, 16 Floors 11-3, 16, 73 third 43-4 Floros 17 Forms approved 8, 33 short log check-in 24 Framing 20, 47 Freight elevator 16 Fresh air ventilation 75 Fridays 14, 81 Front 74, 83, 85

90

Fumes seeping 79 Functions 4, 28 G Gaming area 72 Garden Lane 66 Gas cans 85 Gift certificates 41 Gifts 40-1 food 41 observed contractors bestowing Good customer relations 22 service 29 Government 40 local 3 GPS 16, 31 documentation 21 logs 31, 44 GPS Technology 1, 31 Group, special 26 Guests 41, 72

41

High Sierra Drive 85 History 13, 30 log 23 reports 30 system 20 Home 83, 86 group 80 Homeowners 25 Hotel personnel 72 Hotels 17, 39, 40, 43, 75 Hour increments 24 half 24 minimum 24 Hour Complaints 36 Hours 7, 10, 24, 26, 35-6, 43, 80 Hours Complaints 1 Hours, normal business 36 House 76, 85 HTE 8 database 8, 9 Hundred people 74 I I thought it went away 69 IBC 58, 60 Impartial discharge 40 Incident 22, 29, 36, 79 Index 2 Individuals 4, 21-2, 24, 29, 40 handicapped 57 licensed 39 Individual's name 48 Influence, undue 1, 38 Information Kessler 12 Inspected Building Inspector 10's church 21 Inspection 6, 9-12, 14-5, 17-8, 20-1, 235, 27, 30, 33-4, 36, 43-4, 46, 51-2, 54-6, 58-61, 64-8 alleged complaint 44 approvals 20 conducted 22 disapprovals, multiple 21 electrical 44 expedited 26 fees 26 overtime 26 special 26 field 51 final 21, 48 form 37 on-site 35, 86 performed 21 physical 72 process 21 record 34, 75 reports 27 result 21

H Hallways 76 No hand rail provided 56 Handicapped accessibility 57 Handicapped ramps 57 Handwriting 72, 74 Handwritten 8, 33, 60, 64, 81 notes 8, 66 Hardware 83 Harley Davidson Caf 82 Harrah 4, 11-2, 14, 37, 47 employee of 37 Harrah's Casino 47 Harrah's complaint 28 Harrah's Employee 43, 47-8 Harrah's employee AA 43 Harrah's Employee, contacted 47 Harrah's employees 4 Harrah's Entertainment 4, 17 Harrah's Entertainment's Chief Litigation Officer 4 Harrah's Hotel 17 Harrah's Las Vegas 11, 76 Harrah's Las Vegas Hotel 17 Harrah's Las Vegas South 11 Harrah's Mardi Gras 12 Harrah's Mardi Gras Tower, involved 43 Harrah's properties 3, 11 Harrah's Rio 11 Harrah's Rio Hotel 13 Harrah's South Mardi Gras Tower 12 Hazardousness, potential 10, 36 Hazards 78, 83 health 83 Health Department 23, 57 High Priority 10, 36

91

staff 30 supervisor 28 undocumented 16 Inspections Services 6 Inspector claims 31 names 37 reports 74 Inspectors 1, 3, 11-2, 22, 24-32, 34-6, 39, 40, 43-5, 57-8, 60, 64-5, 67, 712, 77-8, 80-1, 84 assigned 34, 44 involved 22 Kessler 28 notes 30 Inspectors 12 70 Inspector's notes 8, 9, 32 Inspectors work 30 Installation 43-4, 47 Interviews 4 Investigation fee 24 independent 29 Investigative dept 15 Investigative fees 1, 23-5 Investigative techniques 29 Not investigators 28 J Jericho Street 61 JNH 49 Job 3, 12, 20, 26, 38-9, 44, 47-8 site 43 July 10 73 11 57 12 52 13 11-2 14 47 18 47, 58-60, 65, 68 19 60, 65, 68 25 12 26 44 29 65 31 69 dated 37, 52, 58, 68 July Notice of Violation 48 June 10 79 12 52 14 85 21 12 23 12 dated 11 K Kessler 3-5, 7-41, 43-9, 52, 54-8, 62, 64, 69, 72, 76, 83 audit 19

authorized 22 concurs 28 deficiencies 19 documentation 33 file 66 informed 15-6, 22, 39, 48-9 permission, refused 17 Kessler's attention 31 audit 3, 4, 7, 9, 14, 20, 25, 29, 35, 37 engagement 38 field audit 41 research 12 sampling 25 staff 41 verification 35 Knowledge 4, 26 L La Flirt 54 Lag time Kessler 34 Las Vegas 3, 18, 36, 46 Las Vegas Boulevard 17, 72, 74, 76, 78, 82, 84 Las Vegas Review Journal 41 Las Vegas Review-Journal 16 Latch 84 Law enforcement agency 22 Lawsuits 22, 38 Letter, long 57 Letters 9, 33 Licensed architect 75 Licensed tradesman 39 Life safety systems 37-8 Light fixture 13 Listing Contractor 47 Location 16, 21, 28, 45, 51-2, 67, 74, 78, 80-1 Log 5, 13, 16, 30-1, 33, 49, 50, 59-62 entry 13, 61-2, 65 information 67 Los Feliz Street 67 Low Priority 10, 36 M Mail 7, 27, 32, 68 certified 52 requested 68 Maintenance issues 57, 64 Management 22-3, 28, 31 company 61 staff 4 trade union 39 Manager 75 Manager of Building Inspections 19, 20, 22 Managers of Inspections Services 6 Managing agent 62 Mantra 28

92

March 10 46 15 52 19 76 20 86 22 17, 86 23 76 26 72 27 28 28 74, 79 Marshal 32 Mass, large 74 Media articles 5 attention 38 Medium Priority 10, 36 Members 39, 40, 69 Memo 14-5, 32, 37 Supervising Inspector 14 Memorandum 5, 14, 20 Men's accessory 54 MGM Mirage 49 MGM Mirage Resort and Casino Minimum, one-hour 24 Mobile trailer parks 25 Models 83 Monday 65 Money 26 owner deposits 26 Multi-family dwellings 25 properties 25

49

Occupancy 12, 78 level 78 October 10 15, 60 12 64, 66 13 64, 66 15 67 16 66 18 67, 70 19 44 20 44, 49 24 44 Odor 81 Office 41, 49, 64 staff 41 Office Visits 9, 33 Officer, public 40 Oquendo 70 Orinda Street 86 Overcrowding 78, 80 Overtime charges 26 Owner 24, 26-7, 39, 52, 60-2, 65, 71, 81, 83, 86 remodeling 62 Oyster Bar 76 P PACE (Proactive Code Enforcement) 1, 18 PACE program 18 Paddle locked front 80 Paint fumes, strong 86 Painting equipment 86 Palos Veras Street 65 Panel 59, 67 boards 65 elevator 16 Paperwork 32, 37, 49, 53 Parking garage limousine 43 Parties, involved 9 Passenger elevator 16 Pecuniary interest 40 Penalties 25-6, 39 assessment of 25-6 People max 78 Perception, public 26 Permit 5, 11-3, 18, 20, 23-6, 43-4, 47-8, 51-2, 54, 61-2, 69 division 41 fee 24-5 file 47 number 12, 44, 47, 52, 54 penalty 25 purposes 47 requirements 39 regarding 14 valid 24 Permit Application Department 25 Permitted work 19 Person 9, 32, 40

N NEC 68 110.13A 59, 65 Neighborhoods 6, 63, 83 residential 83 Nevada 44 Nevada Revised Statutes Chapter 8, 32 Nevada State Contractors Board 39 Nevso Drive 79 NFPA 84 Nobody home 77 Non-deliverable letter sent 71 Notices of Violation 52 of Violations (NOV) 25 Notification, encompassed 37 NOV (Notices of Violations) 25 November 16 51 30 13 NRS 40 O Objects 83 miscellaneous 83 Occasions 4, 35, 38, 44

93

lodging 36 Phases 9 of complaint resolution 9, 35 Phone 47, 64 Phone Calls 9, 33 Plans 14-5, 21, 44, 47-8 approved 13, 20-1 electrical 47 Plates 68 switch 13 Plumbing 20, 46-7, 52 layouts 13 underground 20 Police work 28 Pool 56 area 78 Post tension cables 13 Power 43 authorized electrical 21 Practices, office's 4 Preferential treatment 21 Premises 28, 63 Prevention 36 Prioritizes 10, 36 Private source 40 Proactive Code Enforcement (PACE) 1, 18 Proactive inspection program 39 Problem 5, 16, 64, 66-7, 74 chronic 81 Procedures, special audit 4 Processes, permitting 39 Processing Complaints 7, 8 Projects 21, 26, 39, 48, 67 Property 14, 17, 20, 25, 40, 44, 49, 52, 60-2, 70, 75, 78, 83 adjacent 70 owners 25-6 owner's agent 20 owners, shady 18 Public employees acceptance 40 Q Questioned Special Assignment Section Commercial Combination 58 R Ramada Express 51 in Laughlin 51 Ramhorn Canyon Street 59 Rate 24, 26 Rated labels 84 Re-inspection 78 Receipt 34, 73 Recommendations 19, 30 Recommendations 8, 25, 29-32, 38-9 Record of Communications 37 Referrals 6, 9, 69 prioritize CCPRO 6 section 9

Regulations 5, 26, 40-1 Reliance 18, 30 Remodeling 46, 49, 52, 61-2 retail center 54 spa 49 work 12, 54 Renovation work 16 Request 6, 21, 46, 65 Request for Code Enforcement services form 8 Enforcement Services form 9 forms 8, 9 Request, party's 24 Requested information 48 Requested letter 52 Residential buildings 26 Residential properties 5 Residents 3, 77 Resolution 34, 51, 61-2, 71, 74, 81, 84 area 50 complaint response form's 50 Responsibility 25, 67 Retention 1, 27 Return receipt 52 certified 68 certified mail 68 Review management 30 Rich Drive 62 Ridge Crest Drive 83 Rio 11, 14-5 complaint 28, 31 employee 14-5 representatives 13 staff 16 Rio Employees 16 Rio Hotel & Casino 13 Rio's attention 16 Rolex 54 Rolex Store 54 Roof drain 70 Room numbers 16 Rooms 13, 16-7, 75, 78 laundry 68 locker 78 utility type 78 Routine construction approvals 39 Royal Hotel and Casino 75 S Safety codes 3 violated life 75 inspectors 3 public 3, 26, 29 standards 3 Sample period 19 Samples 19 Sands 12

94

Sands Avenue 73 Sands Expo and Convention Center 73 Scanning 27, 45 Scope 1, 4, 24, 38 Scraps 7-9, 32 Security 3, 73-4 desk 16 permissions 33 Selective Recording 69 of Complaints 1, 19, 37 Sender 68 September 10 20 12 43 13 20 15 43 17 20 18 43, 47 19 43 20 68 26 54 30 49 Service 22, 24, 40 entrance equipment 67 enclosing 67 equipment riser 59, 65 Sewerage backups 75 Sexual harassment 22 offenders 23 Sheets 8, 35 supplemental 35 Shop 83 slot repair 49 welding 49 Shoving 74 Showed discrepancies 34 Site 14-5, 17, 19-21, 23, 28, 35, 43, 57, 60, 79, 80, 83 involvement 6 Slabs 13, 47 Smell, strong 81 Smoke alarm, operated 80 detection 75 detector chirping 80 detectors 80 South Maryland Parkway 46 South Swenson 64 Spaces 57-8, 67 parking 57 Special Assignment Section Commercial Combination 60 assigned 64 Special Assignment Section Commercial Combination Inspector 11, 17, 23, 57-68 Specialist 6-10, 19, 66 Sprinkler system 78

Staff 6, 10, 35, 38, 78 designated clerical 32 housekeeping 84 timeshare sales 78 Stairs 51, 58, 60, 84 designed 51 Stairways 82, 84 Stairwell 84 Status 15, 69 update 70 Steel wires protruding 75 Storage area 60, 84 Street, Audrey 45 Strip property 25 Subject 20, 47 location 66 property 23 Submission 32, 48 time 65 Suite 20, 52 10 69 14 81 Suites 46 guestroom 12 neighboring 81 Supervising Inspector 11-7, 20, 23, 43, 45-7, 49, 50, 52-4, 56 Supervisor 13, 35, 53, 57 Sushi Rikki 52 and Firefly Restaurant 52 Swings 22 Switches 13, 49, 68 T Telephone 7, 10, 13, 32, 36, 47 number 47 Telephoned DynaElectric Co 44 Tenant 20, 52, 79 Tenant's contractor 20 Tenants, offered 23 Terminated Clark County Building Inspector Supervisor 12 Time Building Inspector 21 TOA 36 references 36 Tools 31, 83 Tourist attractions 83 Tourists 3, 73 Tower 13-4 Trade Union Management Interview Trail 30 auditable 34 Training 4, 7, 10-1, 29 Transcription 66 Travel patterns 31 Tropicana 12, 23, 84 Tropicana Avenue 23 Trusses, penetrating 43 Trust 3

39

95

public 3 Twain Avenue

71

U Un-permitted work 44 Uncertified welders 49 Uncovered information 54 Unfinished raw material 75 Union Management Interview 1 Unlicensed contractors 18 Unlicensed people 39 Unpermitted installations 49 Unpermitted work 11 Unwarranted privileges 40 UPC 58 UPS room 49 V Vacant apartment 23 Vehicle 16, 44-5, 83 commercial 83 inoperative 83 space 83 usage 5 Venetian hotel employee 73 Violation issued on August 67 Violation Notice 52 Violations 3, 11-2, 20, 23, 25, 38-9, 43, 47-54, 56-62, 64-5, 67-8, 75, 80 direct 21 enforcing code 83 ethics 38 life safety 26 minor 75 safety code 3 suspected 10, 35 Voicemail box 10, 35 W Wall finishes 75 moldings 75 paper 13 Walls 76, 79 separation 17 taking 61-2 Water heater 58, 68 Weakness, recurring 9, 35 Weaknesses 3, 30 exposing 4 Weekend 66 Welding company 79 Welding equipment 86 West Viking Road and South Valley View Boulevard 16 Whistleblower 3, 4, 11, 28, 49 Wings 14, 16 Winnick Avenue 45 Woman restroom 57

Wonderful Massage Spa 20 Work 4, 6, 12-4, 16, 19-21, 23-6, 28, 38, 43-9, 52, 54, 57, 61-2, 64, 69 Wrong Address 59 Wynn Hotel 72 Wynn Resort 54 X XXXX 69, 70 15

Y Yards, common

96